■tin 

Ira 


rat 


This  book  is  DUE  on   the  last  date  stamped  below 


rR  2  6  1924 


/ 


SOUTHERN  BRANCH, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

LIBRARY, 
U3S  ANGELESt  CALIF. 


Columbia  2lntbergit2  Hectares 


PRINCIPLES   OF   POLITICS 

FROM  THE  VIEWPOINT  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
CITIZEN 

GEORGE  BLUMENTHAL  FOUNDATION 
1908 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
SALES  AGENTS 

NEW    YORK: 

LEMCKE  &   BUECHNER 

30-32  West  27th  Street 

LONDON : 

HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

Amen  Coenee,  E.C. 


COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY  LECTURES 


PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 


FROM   THE  VIEWPOINT  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  CITIZEN 


BY 


JEREMIAH   W.    JENKS,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  GOVERNMENT    AND   PUBLIC    ADMINISTRATION   IN 
NEW   YORK   UNIVERSITY 


Nefo  Hark 
COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

1916 

All  rights  reserved 


COPYRIGHT,  1909, 

By  THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  April,  1909.     Reprinted 
November,  1916. 


Norfaooti  $r*08 

J.  S.  Cushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


1 07 


TO 

MY  STUDENTS    OF   POLITICS 

WHO    HAVE    GREATLY    ASSISTED    ME 

BY  THEIR  HELPFUL  QUESTIONS 

AND  SUGGESTIONS 


PREFACE 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  volume  to  explain  as  simply 
as  possible  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  thoughtful  American 
citizen  the  principles  by  which  political  action  is  in  the 
main  guided  in  the  United  States  and  in  other  countries 
similarly  situated.  This  material  was  prepared  originally 
^  as  a  course  of  lectures  to  be  given  on  the  George  Blu- 
v,  menthal  Foundation  at  Columbia  University  in  the  fall 
C^  and  winter  of  1907.  The  lectures  are  printed  substan- 
tially as  given,  so  far  as  substance  and  arrangement  are 
concerned.  If  in  any  way  they  are  to  be  distinguished 
from  other  writings  on  similar  topics,  it  is  in  the  effort 
to  bring  into  closer  touch  than  is  usual  the  work  of  the 
scholar  and  of  the  practical  man  of  affairs.  Too  often 
students  in  our  Universities  take  the  courses  in  economics 
and  in  politics  without  becoming  fully  conscious  of  the 
{J)  fact  that  the  topics  that  they  are  studying  are  those  which 
concern  actual  living  conditions,  and  that  if  they  are 
thoroughly  understood  they  may  prove  helpful  later  in 
the  business  of  life.  Unfortunately,  the  men  who  write 
books  on  economic  and  political  topics  too  frequently  base 
their  studies  only  on  other  books  written  by  men  who 
likewise  have  not  had  practical  experience.  In  conse- 
quence, such  studies  at  times  lack  touch  with  actual  life. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  men  who  do  business  and  those 
who  are  active  in  guiding  the  affairs  of  state  compara- 
tively seldom  write  out  in  detail  their  methods  of  work 
and  the  principles  by  which  their  activities  are  guided. 
In  the  preparation  of  this  work,  while  it  has  been  the 


vni  PREFACE 

intention  not  to  neglect  the  books  that  have  been  written 
on  the  subject,  more  material  has  been  secured  from  men 
engaged  in  the  practical  work  of  politics  and  from  a  some- 
what long  experience  in  the  observation  of  political  affairs. 
The  topics  here  treated  have  been  discussed  for  many- 
years  with  students  in  the  class  room  as  well  as  with  citi- 
zens of  many  types  who  are  interested  in  public  questions. 
I  hope  that  the  work  may  prove  helpful  to  citizens,  espe- 
cially to  our  young  citizens  who  are  ambitious  to  play 
a  part  in  politics,  in  making  clear  and  impartial  their  own 
outlook  on  life,  and  in  enabling  them  to  fix  thoroughly 
and  wisely  the  principles  by  which  their  own  political 
activity  may  be  guided. 

JEREMIAH  W.  JENKS. 

Cornell  University, 
Ithaca,  N.Y.,  1909. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

Nature  of  the  State  and  of  Government 

Study  of  the  principles  of  government . 

Political  character  of  the  average  man 

Necessity  of  an  ideal  in  political  and  social  life    . 

The  improvement  of  the  highest  and  best  powers  of  citizens,— 

the  general  ideal 

Individual  and  personal  ideal        .... 
Principles  of  government  as  an  aid  to  civic  work 

Definition  of  politics 

The  state  a  social  organization     .... 

Economic  society 

The  state  supreme 

The  importance  of  a  citizen's  relation  to  the  state 

The  unlimited  aid  and  protection  of  the  state 

Allegiance  of  citizens 

Government 

An  organ  of  the  state    ...... 

Action  of  state  only  through  government     . 

The  importance  of  personal  characteristics  of  officials 

The  relation  of  the  government  to  individual  citizens 

The  scope  of  activities  of  the  state,  —  socialistic,  individualistic 

Its  dependence  upon  the  will  of  the  state     . 

The  determination  of  the  will  of  the  state,  largely  through  eco- 
nomic and  political  conditions    . 

Premises  to  be  considered  in  political  reasoning  . 

The  variability  of  human  nature  .... 

The  economic  conditions  of  the  country 

The  difference  in  races 

The  difference  in  institutions         .... 

Methods  of  study 


1 
2 
3 

5 

5 

5 

6 

7 

8 

8 

9 
10 
11 
11 
12 
12 
13 
13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
19 
19 
20 


x  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introspection  and  comparison  with  other  individuals  ...  20 

Comparison  of  states  and  governments 20 

Experimentation 21 

Importance  of  the  relation  between  politics  and  ethics        .         .  21 

CHAPTER  II 

Political  Motives 

The  importance  of  investigating  motives 23 

Complexity  of  motives 24 

Not  only  de  jure  but  also  de  facto  rulers  to  be  considered    .         .  24 

All  rulers  affected  by  popular  sentiment 25 

Conscientiousness  of  action  —  excuses 26 

Desire  to  hold  and  extend  power 28 

Desire  to  serve  public 29 

The  "  boss  "  vs.  the  leader 29 

Like  principles  found  in  business 30 

Complexity  of  motives  of  individual  citizens        .         .         .         .31 

Consciousness  of  kind 31 

Prejudice  springing  from  racial  differences 32 

Inertia 33 

Relation  of  inertia  to  conservatism 35 

Self-interest 36 

Devotion  to  leader 37 

Devotion  to  party 38 

Patriotism 39 

Diversity  of  interests  and  views 39 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Suffrage 

"  Natural  right " 40 

Influence  of  inertia  on  suffrage 41 

Power  of  voter 42 

Extension  of  suffrage 43 

Popular  government  vs.  free  government 43 

Suffrage  not  a  right  but  a  trust 43 

Work  of  voter 44 


CONTENTS 


XI 


Passing  upon  laws 
Selection  of  representatives 
Qualifications  of  voters 


Residence 

Education 

Knowledge  of  good  government    .         .         •    .     • 

Patriotism  and  interest 

Good  judgment 

Importance  of  independent  thinking 

Woman  suffrage 

Personal  qualifications  of  women  in  the  United  States— favor- 
able and  adverse  to  suffrage 

Independence  

Example  of  Western  States 

Lack  of  interest 

Influence  of  public  sentiment 

Negro  suffrage  and  that  of  special  races        .         .         •         •    ■     ■ 
Training  of  public  opinion 


CHAPTER  IV 
Political  Parties 

The  coordinating  force  in  government 

The  origin  of  parties,  differences  in  human  nature 

Organization  .... 

Duty  of  getting  offices   . 

Party  methods 

Doubtful  votes 

Party  exists  for  good  of  state 

Principles  determining  party  membership 

Influence  of  temperament,  environment,  etc 

Business  interests  . 

Public  interest 

Habit  and  inertia  . 

Allegiance  to  party 

Influence  of  independent  voters 

Influence  of  great  leaders 

The  changing  nature  of  a  party 


PAGE 

45 
45 

47 
47 
48 
48 
50 
50 
50 
51 
53 

53 
55 
56 
57 
57 
58 
60 


61 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

65 

66 

66 

67 

68 

68 

69 

69 

70 

70 


xii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

The  character  of  the  "  ins  and  outs  " 70 

The  functions  of  third  parties 71 

Special  issues 72 

Necessity  of  separating  carefully  local  and  national  issues  .         .  73 

Claims  of  party  upon  some  offices,  e.g.  The  Cabinet     ...  74 

Party  leadership 74 

Advantages  (and  vice  versa)  of  wealthy  men  and  of  poor  men  in 

office 75 

Devotion  to  party  for  sake  of  country 75 

CHAPTER  V 

Representation 

Modern  significance  of  representation 76 

Are  representatives  mere  delegates  or  independent  representa- 
tive citizens  ? 77 

Example  of  Edmund  Burke 77 

Present  practice  not  the  ideal 78 

Care  of  local  interests  by  representatives 79 

Work  for  constituents 79 

Gerrymander          ..........  80 

Machine  rules  for  party  voting 81 

Class  representation  of  some  countries 81 

Large  representation  of  lawyers 83 

Labor  representatives 83 

Proportional  system  of  representation 84 

Advantages 85 

Disadvantages 87 

Suitability  of  system  to  country 91 

CHAPTER  VI 

Legislation 


Origin  of  law ;  primitive  custom,  taboo,  vendetta,  etc 

Importance  of  popular  approval  of  law 

Wisdom  of  law-makers  following  peoples'  wishes 

Example  of  prohibition  laws  .... 

Wisdom  of  conservatism  in  legislation 

Example  of  child  labor 


92 
93 
95 
95 
96 
96 


CONTENTS 


XUl 


Compromise  in  legislation 

Gambling 

Free  trade 

Attack  on  vice  by  legislation 

Canteen  at  army  posts 

Need  of  experts  in  legislation 

Scope  of  legislation,  national,  state,  or  local 

Details  left  to  voluntary  associations 

Necessity  of  public  opinion  supporting  legislation,  local  option 

Over-legislation 

Danger  of  checking  individual  initiative       .... 

The  referendum  and  initiative 

Fundamental  principles  of  legislation 

CHAPTER   VII 


Administration 

Direct  and  positive  influence  of  executive     . 
Reflected  influence  on  those  near  him  in  power    . 

Desirability  of  this  prestige 

Power  of  legislature  over  revenue 
Power  of  personality  of  executive 
Relation  of  executive  to  legislature 
Enforcement  of  unpopular  law      .... 

Sherman  anti-trust  law 

Evil  relation  of  legislature  and  executive 

Interpretation  of  laws  by  executive 

Dependence  of  subordinate  on  superior 

Similarity  of  government  administration  to  corporation 

Members  of  cabinet  —  qualifications     . 

The  civil  service 

Appointments  by  executive 

Competitive  system  of  examination  for  appointments 

Work  of  subordinates 

Importance  of  inspection 

Efficiency  of  centralization  in  executive  department 
Management  of  local  business  ;  "  Home  rule  " 
Cooperation  of  executive  and  legislature 
Private  enterprise  vs.  public  control 


PAGE 

97 
98 
98 


100 
101 
102 
102 
103 
103 
104 
104 
109 


110 
112 
113 

113 
114 
114 
115 
116 
117 
117 
118 
120 
120 
122 
123 
123 
124 
126 
126 
126 
127 
127 


xiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VHI 
The  Judiciary 

PAGE 

Chief  work  of  courts  —  declaration  and  interpretation  of  law      .  129 

Example  of  Sherman  anti-trust  act 129 

Doctrine  of  "  implied  powers  "  of  constitution      ....  131 

Dred  Scott  decision 132 

Ambiguity  of  laws 132 

Effect  of  change  of  conditions  on  interpretation  of  laws      .         .  133 

"  Interstate  commerce  " 133 

Importance  of  lay  advice  to  courts 134 

Conservatism  of  judge-made  law 135 

Nature  of  constitutional  amendment 136 

Reflection  of  change  of  public  opinion  by  court  ....  137 
Importance  of  power  of  Supreme  Court  to  declare  an  act  un- 
constitutional         138 

Other  powers  of  courts 139 

Courts  of  conciliation  in  Norway 139 

Administrative  courts 140 

Avoidance  of  partisanship  by  courts 141 

Impartiality 141 

Term  of  office 142 

Qualifications  of  judges 142 

The  people  and  the  courts 143 

CHAPTER  IX 
Constitutions 


Comparative  length  of  constitutions 
Increased  length  of  recent  constitutions 
Nature  of  constitutions,  written  and  unwritten 
Definition  of  constitution       .... 
Professor  Burgess'  idea  of  constitution 
Method  of  amendment  or  change  of  constitution 
"  Constitution  of  liberty"  or  declaration  of  rights 
Form  of  organization  of  departments  of  government 

"  Enacting  clause  " 

Constitution  as  a  clear  statement  of  fundamental  laws 


144 
145 
145 
146 
146 
147 
147 
148 
149 
150 


CONTENTS  XV 

PAGE 

Nature  of  English  constitution 150 

Promulgation  and  ratification  of  constitution       ....  151 

Constitution-making  bodies 152 

Amendment  of  constitution 154 

Meanings  of  word  "  people  " 154 

The  complete  constitution 155 

Political  parties  and  their  actions  in  relation  to  the  constitution  155 

Presence  in  many  constitutions  of  statutes  of  minor  import         .  156 

Confusion  of  legislative  and  constitutional  functions  .         .         .  157 

Nature  of  matter  suitable  for  constitution 158 


CHAPTER   X 
International  Relations 

Geographical  situation,  effect  upon  international  relations  .         .  160 

Early  expansion  into  territory  of  Indians 161 

Example  of  Russo-Japanese  war 162 

Later  expansion  of  United  States          ......  163 

Methods  and  justice  of  acquiring  territory 164 

Justification  of  strength 165 

Monroe  Doctrine 165 

Relations  with  Cuba      .                  166 

The  Philippine  situation 167 

Diplomatic  methods  of  the  last  hundred  years      .        .        .        .169 

American  policy 170 

Influences  tending  toward  perpetual  peace   .         .         .         .         .  171 

Enormous  cost  of  armies 171 

Economic  competition 172 

Commerce 172 

Influence  of  church 173 

Growth  of  great  states  .        .        .        .  - 173 

Federation 173 

Alliances 173 

Arbitration    . 174 

Hague  Tribunal 174 

Hague  Conferences 174 

Need  of  general  Congress 175 

A  world  federation 175 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The  following  brief  list  of  books  may  prove  suggestive  to  those  who 
care  to  read  somewhat  in  Politics.  The  books  differ  in  nature  and  in 
point  of  view,  but  all  are  helpful.  It  has  been  thought  best  to  add  to 
those  on  political  theory  a  few  in  English  giving  the  facts  regarding 
the  forms  of  government  in  the  leading  modern  states. 

Aristotle,  Politics. 

Plato,  The  Republic,  Apology. 

Dante,  De  Monarchia. 

Machiavelli,  The  Prince. 

Montesquieu,  Spirit  of  the  Laws. 

Locke,  Essays  on  Civil  Government. 

Rousseau,  Social  Contract. 

Hegel,  The  Philosophy  of  the  State  and  of  History. 

Burke,  Speech  Previous  to  Bristol  Election. 

The  Federalist. 

Bluntschli,  The  Theory  of  the  State. 

Bluntschli,  Politik  als  Wissenschaft. 

Lieber,  Francis,  Political  Ethics. 

Burgess,  John  W.,  Political  Science  and  Comparative  Constitutional 

Law.    2  vols. 
Goodnow,  Frank  J.,  Politics  and  Administration. 
Sidgwick,  Henry,  Elements  of  Politics. 
Lowell,  James  Russell,  Democracy  and  Other  Essays. 
Lowell,  James  Russell,  Political  Essays. 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  Congressional  Government. 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States. 
Jenks,  J.  W.,  Citizenship  and  the  Schools. 
Willoughby,  W.  W.,  Nature  of  the  State. 
Hadley,  Arthur  T.,  Standards  of  Public  Morality. 
Ritchie,  David  G.,  Natural  Rights. 
Seeley,  J.  R.,  Introduction  to  Political  Science. 
Leacock,  Stephen,  Elements  of  Political  Science. 

xvii 


xviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Shaw,  Albert,  Political  Problems  of  American  Development. 

Jenks,  Edward,  History  of  Politics. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  Principles  of  Sociology.     3  vols. 

Ward,  Lester  F.,  Applied  Sociology. 

Giddixgs,  Franklin  H.,  The  Principles  of  Sociology. 

Dunning,  William  A.,  Political  Theories.     2  vols. 

Janet,  Paul,  Histoire  de  la  science  politique  dans  ses  rapports  avec 

la  morale.     2  vols. 
Lowell,  A.   Lawrence,   Government  and  Parties  in   Continental 

Europe.     2  vols. 
Dupriez,  L.,  Les  Ministres  dans  les  principaux  pays  d'Europe  et 

d'Amerique. 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  The  State. 

Bryce,  James,  The  American  Commonwealth.     2  vols. 
Lowell,  A.  Lawrence,  The  Government  of  England.    2  vols. 
Macy,  Jesse,  The  English  Constitution. 
Bodley,  J.  E.  C,  France.     2  vols. 
Howard,  Burt  Estes,  The  German  Empire. 
Vincent,  John  Martin,  Government  in  Switzerland. 


THE  PKINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT 

It  is  assumed  that  the  readers  of  this  book  will  be  people 
interested  in  politics  not  merely  as  scientific  students,  but 
also  as  practical  American  citizens  who  are  willing  to  aid 
in  the  improvement  of  conditions  as  far  as  they  think 
practicable.  It  is  not  assumed  that  the  readers  are  "re- 
formers" in  the  professional  sense  sometimes  given  to 
that  word.  So  high  an  authority  on  politics  as  President 
Roosevelt  has  said  (and  whether  one  agrees  with  him  or 
not  in  his  political  views,  it  will  be  granted  by  every 
one  that  he  is  one  of  the  most  practical  politicians  and 
keen  judges  of  public  opinion  in  the  United  States)  that 
next  to  the  corrupt  politician  the  most  difficult  man  to  deal 
with  in  the  administration  of  public  affairs,  however  highly 
educated  he  may  be,  is  the  sincere  but  unpractical  radical 
reformer.  The  readers  of  the  book,  I  trust,  will  be  per- 
sons of  the  type  of  practical  reformers. 

We  shall  try  to  study  in  a  reasonable  way  the  principles 
of  government  as  exemplified  primarily  in  the  action  of 
advanced  democratic  governments  of  the  present  day, 
especially  in  the  United  States;  and  we  shall  deal  with 
such  problems  as  suffrage,  political  parties,  the  work  of 
representative  bodies,  that  of  the  judiciary,  international 
relations,  and  similar  questions. 

1 


2  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

In  order  that  the  study  may  be  of  genuine  service, 
actual  conditions  must  be  depicted,  and  from  the  facts  of 
social  and  political  life  the  principles  must  be  drawn. 

Too  frequently  those  people  who  are  trying  to  improve 
political  conditions  assume,  often  unconsciously,  that  the 
great  mass  of  the  people  in  the  community  are  of  the  same 
type  as  themselves;  that  they  really  consciously  wish 
to  put  into  effect  the  specific  measures  that  the  reformers 
are  advocating,  and  that  their  purposes  are  consciously 
high  and  noble.  This  assumption  is  mistaken  and  dan- 
gerous. It  must  be  recognized  that  the  great  majority 
of  us  are  unenlightened  so  far  as  the  principles  of  politics  are 
concerned,  and  that  we  are  very  short-sighted  in  our  views 
of  life.  Nearly  all  of  us  must  devote  practically  all  of  our 
time  and  energy  to  the  mere  drudge  work  of  getting  a  liv- 
ing. In  consequence,  we  cannot  spend  the  time  and  energy 
needed  to  study  in  any  thoroughly  practical  or  scientific 
way  either  the  general  principles  of  politics  or  the  special 
political  questions  of  the  day  that  come  before  us  for 
solution.  If,  therefore,  this  book  is  to  be  of  practical 
benefit,  it  must  keep  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  facts  of 
political  life  as  they  exist  in  the  United  States,  and 
out  of  these  facts  as  depicted  must  grow  these  political 
principles. 

Before  any  positive  progress  can  be  made  in  political 
or  social  life,  the  minds  of  the  citizens  or  of  the  statesman 
must  be  fixed  upon  some  ideal  of  the  state  toward  which 
it  should  move.  It  is  quite  possible,  of  course,  —  in  fact, 
it  is  practically  certain,  —  that  the  state  will  never  attain 
the  highest  ideal.  If,  however,  a  tentative  ideal  is  set  up, 
not  so  far  ahead  that  it  can  never  be  attained,  the  natural 
capacity    for    improvement    which    every    human    being 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT   3 

possesses  will,  immediately  on  the  attainment  of  that 
ideal,  set  up  another  standard  farther  ahead,  so  that  there 
is  no  serious  danger  of  progress  ceasing ;  and  if  we  do  not 
wish  to  check  growth,  we  must  all  keep  before  us  some  ideal 
toward  which  to  struggle,  whether  or  not  we  really  expect 
fully  to  attain  it. 

Near  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  before  Christ, 
when  the  ancient  Athenians  were  directing  their  attention 
toward  the  highest  ideals  of  political  life  of  their  time 
and  perhaps  of  all  time,  in  the  funeral  oration  which 
Pericles  delivered  over  the  heroes  who  had  fallen  at 
Marathon,  he  said,  "We  aim  at  a  life  beautiful  with- 
out extravagance;  contemplative  without  unmanliness; 
wealth  with  us  is  a  thing  not  for  ostentation,  but  for  rea- 
sonable use,  and  it  is  not  the  acknowledgment  of  poverty 
that  we  think  disgraceful,  but  the  lack  of  endeavor  to 
avoid  it."  Pericles  dared  to  stand  before  the  people  of 
ancient  Athens  and  in  public  proclaim  that  as  the  ideal 
of  Athenian  statesmen.  I  somewhat  question  whether  any 
public  man  of  the  United  States  would  dare  to  stand  before 
an  American  audience  and  proclaim  a  similar  ideal  to  be 
the  one  towards  which  the  American  people  are  in  fact 
striving. 

Perhaps  James  Russell  Lowell  came  somewhat  nearer 
the  ideal  of  the  best  minds  desiring  the  advancement  of 
the  United  States  when,  in  his  classic  address  on  De- 
mocracy, he  attempted  to  fix  the  standard  by  which  we 
should  estimate  the  true  value  of  a  nation  in  these  words : 
"The  real  value  of  a  country  must  be  weighed  in  scales 
more  delicate  than  the  Balance  of  Trade.  The  garners 
of  Sicily  are  empty  now,  but  the  bees  from  all  climes  still 
fetch  honey  from  the  tiny  garden  plot  of  Theocritus.     On 


4  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

a  map  of  the  world  you  may  cover  Judea  with  your  thumb, 
Athens  with  a  finger  tip,  and  neither  of  them  figures  in 
the  Prices  Current;  but  they  still  lord  it  in  the  thought 
and  action  of  every  civilized  man.  Did  not  Dante  cover 
with  his  hood  all  that  was  Italy  six  hundred  years  ago? 
And,  if  we  go  back  a  century,  where  was  Germany  outside 
of  Weimar?  Material  success  is  good,  but  only  as  the 
necessary  preliminary  of  better  things.  The  measure  of 
a  nation's  true  success  is  the  amount  it  has  contributed 
to  the  thought,  the  moral  energy,  the  intellectual  happi- 
ness, the  spiritual  hope  and  consolation,  of  mankind. 
There  is  no  other,  let  our  candidates  flatter  us  as  they 
may."  x 

We  may  then,  perhaps,  take  as  the  ideal  toward  which 
the  American  citizen  ought  to  strive  something  like 
this:  The  purpose  of  our  state,  so  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned in  improving  our  political  conditions,  is  to  enable 
each  citizen  to  gratify  to  the  greatest  extent  possible 
his  highest  desires  and  to  develop  his  powers  to  the  best 
advantage.  Not  all  of  our  desires  should  be  gratified, 
only  the  noblest  ones.  Under  those  circumstances  the 
state  would  not  exist  for  the  benefit  of  one  class,  but  for  all 
classes,  since  every  citizen  would  be  enabled,  as  far  as 
possible,  to  develop  as  best  he  can  his  capacities.  Under 
these  conditions,  citizens  would  of  course  differ  as  regards 
the  special  ideal  that  each  would  endeavor  to  obtain,  and 
the  ideal  would  also  change  from  time  to  time ;  and  such 
differences  and  changes  are  right.  A  country  in  one  stage 
of  civilization  cannot  expect  to  work  in  the  same  direction 
as  one  in  a  different  stage.     Each  must  work  in  its  own 

1  "  Democracy  and  Other  Addresses,"  p.  237. 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT       5 

way  for  the  development  of  its  ideal  to  enable  each  citizen  to 
develop  best  his  own  capacities.  Two  civilizations  as  differ- 
ent, for  instance,  as  those  of  China  and  of  the  United  States 
or  of  Great  Britain  and  Japan  cannot  be  striving  in  exactly 
the  same  direction.  It  is  not  proper  to  speak  of  one  of 
these  states  as  having  a  higher  or  lower  civilization  than 
the  other;  they  have  different  types  of  civilization  and 
they  must  work  in  different  directions,  if  the  state  in  each 
case  is  to  secure  best  its  own  advancement.  The  general 
ideal  to  be  followed  is  the  improvement,  in  the  most 
practical  way,  of  the  highest  and  best  powers  of  the 
citizens. 

Given,  however,  this  general,  possibly  somewhat  remote 
ideal,  each  citizen  must  further  ask  himself  what  he  as 
an  individual  can  do,  in  what  way  he  is  to  take  the  first 
step  toward  the  attainment  of  his  ideal ;  and  that  first  step 
will  invariably  be  an  effort  to  understand  and  to  take  an 
active  part  in  the  solution  of  some  special  problem  of  the 
day.  Each  must  do  the  work  that  lies  at  hand.  In  our 
country  that  work  might  be  the  question  of  the  tariff  or 
of  ballot  reform  or  of  the  railroads,  or  the  solution  of  the 
liquor  problem,  or  the  race  problem,  —  whatever  question 
appeals  to  the  individual  as  important  and  as  one  that  he 
can  himself  do  something  to  solve.  If  our  work  as  citizens 
is  to  be  well  done,  we  must  work  toward  our  highest  ideal 
by  dealing  with  practical  problems;  and  we  can  deal  with 
them  in  a  much  more  satisfactory  way  if  we  are  familiar 
with  the  principles  on  which  the  state  and  government 
are  based,  if  we  understand  the  forces  that  animate  the 
state  and  determine  the  way  in  which  the  government 
shall  act.  In  this  brief  series  of  studies  the  intention  is 
to  discuss  these  principles  and  forces  in  order  that  we 


6  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

may  the  more  readily  take  up  without  serious  mistake 
the  political  problems  of  the  day. 

Pohtics  is  the  study  that  deals  with  the  state  and  with 
government.  We  ought  then  first  to  note  what  are  the 
characteristics  of  the  state  and  of  government.  Generally 
speaking,  the  ideas  of  most  of  us  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "  state  "  or  as  to  the  nature  of  the  state  are  extremely 
hazy.  Probably  when  the  word  "  state  "  is  mentioned,  most 
of  us  unconsciously  think  of  Washington  or  Albany  or 
Boston  or  some  other  capital  city  where  we  feel  rather 
than  know  that  important  things  are  done  by  some  people 
who  are  extremely  influential.  Some  years  ago  the  French 
newspapers  had  an  account  of  an  ignorant  peasant  who 
had  come  from  an  outlying  district  of  Brittany  into  Paris 
and  had  taken  his  way  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 
Dressed  in  his  quaint  costume,  with  a  covered  basket  on 
his  arm,  he  was  about  to  enter  the  building  when  a  gendarme 
stopped  him  and  asked  him  what  he  wanted.  "  I  am  come 
to  call  on  the  state,"  he  said.  "What  do  you  mean  by 
that?"  said  the  gendarme.  "Why,"  he  replied,  "I  have 
been  noticing  in  the  newspapers  lately  that  the  state  has 
been  making  provision  for  the  education  of  the  children 
of  France;  that  the  state  has  been  trying  to  improve  the 
conditions  of  the  laboring  people ;  that  the  state  has  been 
taking  measures  to  relieve  the  farmers  from  some  of  their 
burdensome  taxation;  that  the  state  has  been  improving 
our  war  ships  in  order  that  we  might  be  protected  against 
dangers  from  foreign  countries;  and  noticing  that  the 
state  had  been  doing  so  many  good  things  for  all  of  us 
poor  people,  I  felt  that  I  would  like  to  come  to  see  the  state 
and  express  my  gratitude  to  her,  and  I  have  brought  in 
this  basket  a  goose  for  a  present." 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT      7 

I  somewhat  question  whether  the  ideas  of  the  great  mass 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  much  wiser  or  more 
accurate,  on  the  whole,  regarding  the  state,  although  they, 
of  course,  are  very  different  from  those  of  this  ignorant 
peasant.     Certainly  our  views  are  very  indefinite. 

All  of  us  know  that  the  state  is  a  social  organization, 
a  society  of  some  kind,  but  there  are  many  kinds  of  societies. 
If  we  wish  to  satisfy  our  religious  needs,  we  join  a  church, 
—  that  is,  a  religious  society.  If  we  engage  in  business, 
manufacturing,  or  buying,  or  selling,  we  become  members 
of  economic  society;  students  in  our  great  universities 
belong  to  fraternities;  very  many  of  our  citizens  join 
Masonic  lodges,  the  Grange,  the  Maccabees,  the  Elks, 
or  some  other  fraternal  organization,  —  all  of  them  societies 
of  different  types.  In  the  newspapers  from  day  to  day 
in  Europe  we  see  chronicled  the  doings  of  the  titled  aris- 
tocracy; in  Chicago  and  New  York  the  doings  of  our 
so-called  leaders  of  society,  fashionable  society.  Now  all 
these  different  classes  of  societies  have  certain  common 
characteristics.  All  of  them  have  some  kind  of  an  organiza- 
tion more  or  less  definite.  They  are  not  merely  aggrega- 
tions of  human  beings ;  they  live  under  rules.  The  various 
members  of  these  societies  have  some  kind  of  relationship 
one  to  another.  I  have  spoken  of  the  "  leaders  of  society." 
It  is  very  frequently  said  that  if  persons  do  not  follow  the 
customs  or  fashions  laid  down  by  these  leaders,  they  will 
be  excluded  from  society.  That  is  the  punishment  of 
those  who  do  not  obey  the  leaders,  —  exclusion,  social 
ostracism.  Although  the  organization  is  indefinite,  the 
rules  seem  to  be  quite  clearly  defined  and  the  punishment 
for  the  infraction  of  the  rules  is  severe  enough. 

Likewise  with  reference  to  economic  society  concerned 


8  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

with  business  life,  —  complicated  as  are  the  interrelations 
of  business,  there  are  certain  rules  and  principles  which 
are  recognized  by  its  members.  The  working  of  its  rules 
can  readily  be  seen  if  you  attempt  to  think  out  in  detail 
the  means  by  which  almost  any  one  of  your  simplest  desires, 
say  that  for  a  cup  of  coffee,  is  gratified.  In  order  that 
you  may  have  your  cup  of  coffee  at  breakfast,  there  have 
been  at  work  hundreds  of  people  on  the  coffee  plantations 
in  Brazil  or  Java  or  elsewhere.  Hundreds  have  been 
engaged  in  building  the  ships  that  have  transported  the 
coffee  from  that  foreign  clime  to  this;  hundreds  more 
have  been  at  work  in  different  parts  of  the  world  in  mines 
and  forests  getting  out  the  iron  and  steel  and  wood  of 
which  the  ships  have  been  built ;  the  services  of  thousands 
of  sailors  to  man  these  ships  have  been  required;  rail- 
roads and  banks  and  merchants,  wholesale  and  retail, 
and  builders  of  houses  and  bookkeepers  and  lawyers  and 
courts  and  schools  and  colleges  to  train  some  of  these 
people,  and  preachers  to  keep  them  honest,  and  many, 
many  more,  have  all  been  required  to  work  for  you  in  order 
that  you  may  have  your  morning  coffee.  Any  attempt 
to  estimate  the  number  of  people  and  the  kinds  of  work 
that  they  have  done  in  order  that  almost  any  one  of  our 
simplest  wants  may  be  gratified,  will  convince  us  that 
thousands  of  people  have  been  working  together,  all  ap- 
parently in  connection  with  some  definite  plan  of  which 
they  are,  generally  speaking,  unconscious,  in  order  that 
we  may  have  any  little  article  of  luxury  or  comfort.  But 
another  gratifying  thought  is  that  when  we  get  our  little 
article  of  luxury  and  pay  for  it,  we  have  rendered  a  similar 
service  in  return,  the  effect  of  which  has  gone  back  through 
all  these  different  classes  of  society  that  have  been  working 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT  9 

for  us;  and  we,  through  this  organization,  have  paid 
each  one  proportionately.  Such  is  the  complexity  of 
economic  society,  and  at  the  same  time  such  is  the  sim- 
plicity of  its  organization. 

Now  the  state  is  also  a  society,  although  it  differs  in  ' 
its  main  characteristics  from  most  of  these  others  named. 
In  the  first  place,  the  state  is  supreme.     It  gives  laws  to 
them,  it  takes  laws  from  none;    it  is  independent,  they 
are  subordinate. 

The  chief  work  of  the  state  is  that  of  controlling  or 
governing;  it  directs  its  members  in  many  of  their  rela- 
tions of  life;  it  controls  them  in  many  more.  The  state 
exists  in  order  that  the  citizens  may  more  nearly  realize 
the  ideal  of  developing  themselves  to  the  utmost  in  the 
ways  best  fitted  for  them. 

Very  frequently  we  underestimate  the  importance  of 
our  relations  as  citizens  to  the  state  in  which  we  live. 
We  do  not  at  all  realize  that  practically  everything  that 
we  have  comes  from  our  relation  to  the  state,  and  that 
almost  everything  that  we  do  in  life  is  controlled  by  it. 
Every  child,  even  before  it  is  born,  has  its  social  and  busi- 
ness status  fixed,  its  legal  rights  established,  its  claim  to  a 
sufficient  training  acknowledged  by  the  state ;  and  prepara- 
tions are  made  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  state's  obligations. 
For  the  children  the  state  compels  most  people  in  the  com- 
munity to  pay  a  certain  amount  to  support  good  schools; 
it  determines  that  they  shall  be  educated  and  compels 
their  parents  to  send  them  to  school.  It  prevents  ignorant 
or  careless  or  grasping  parents  from  putting  their  children 
to  work  during  their  school  years  under  conditions 
where  their  development,  physical  or  mental,  will  be 
retarded. 


10  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

Almost  every  act  of  business  life,  all  contracts,  all  trans- 
actions of  either  cash  or  credit,  are  made  under  regula- 
tions fixed  by  the  state.  Most  social  relations  of  the 
greatest  importance,  —  marriage,  divorce,  obligations  of 
parents  to  children  and  children  to  parents,  the  relation 
of  employer  to  workman,  of  patron  to  customer,  are  practi- 
cally all  determined  by  the  state;  and  when  we  near  the 
close  of  life,  it  determines  the  conditions  under  which  our 
diseases  shall  be  treated,  our  bodies  buried,  our  estates 
distributed.  Practically  everything  that  we  have  is  con- 
trolled by  the  state  and  every  one  is  dominated  by  it. 
Although  the  state  has  its  similarities  to  other  societies  in 
that  its  members  are  in  an  organization  which  apparently 
works  toward  some  definite  end,  its  different  and  dominat- 
ing character  is  clearly  seen.  We  join  other  societies,  we 
are  born  into  the  state.  If  we  are  born  in  one  state,  we 
cannot  leave  that  and  join  another  except  under  regula- 
tions that  the  states  themselves  have  made  and  enforced. 

But  the  state,  besides  enforcing  its  regulations  upon 
its  citizens  and  providing  the  laws  by  which  we  may 
shape  our  business  and  our  lives,  stands  ready  also  to 
grant  us  aid  and  protection  to  an  almost  unlimited 
extent.  After  the  Hungarian  Revolution,  in  1848,  Martin 
Koszta,  a  native  of  Hungary  who  had  taken  part  in  the 
Revolution  and  had  become  a  banished  refugee,  came  to 
the  United  States  and  declared  his  intention  of  becoming 
an  American  citizen.  Later,  on  a  business  trip  to  the  Old 
World,  he  was  treacherously  seized  at  the  instance  of 
the  Austrian  consul  in  the  port  of  Smyrna,  Turkey,  and 
conveyed  to  an  Austrian  gunboat.  He  claimed  the  right 
of  protection  from  the  United  States,  and  although  he 
was  not  yet  fully  an  American  citizen,  nevertheless,  because 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT     11 

he  was  domiciled  in  our  country  and  had  renounced  his 
allegiance  to  his  former  home  and  declared  his  intention 
of  becoming  a  citizen  and  had  with  him  his  papers,  his 
right  was  recognized.  An  American  commander,  Captain 
Ingraham,  of  an  American  ship,  training  his  guns  upon  the 
Austrian  vessel,  demanded  his  release  under  threat  of 
battle;  and  had  there  not  been  a  temporary  compromise 
promptly  arranged  by  interested  neutrals,  fire  would  have 
been  opened  within  a  few  minutes  and  a  naval  battle  would 
have  been  fought  to  save  this  political  refugee  whose  claim 
for  protection  had  been  recognized.1 

America,  Great  Britain,  Germany,  every  great  self- 
respecting  state,  stands  ready  at  any  time,  at  any  cost,  to 
protect  the  rights  of  its  citizens  when  their  claim  is  properly 
made.  The  state  will  not  withhold  punishment  from 
wrong-doers ;  it  will  see  that  justice  is  done.  Under  such 
circumstances,  in  every  state  every  citizen  whose  claim 
for  protection  is  practically  unlimited  should  show  to 
the  same  unlimited  extent  his  allegiance  and  devotion  to 
his  state,  in  order  that  his  state  may  not  merely  exist,  but 
may  carry  on  its  great  work  to  the  best  advantage. 

No  great  complex  organization  like  that  of  the  state 
can  take  action  directly  as  a  whole.  Its  acts  must  be  done 
through  agents.  Any  society,  literary  or  business  or  social, 
if  it  wishes  anything  done,  does  not  act  as  a  whole,  but 
appoints  a  small  committee,  the  members  of  which  get 
together,  determine  what  ought  to  be  done,  and  carry  out 
in  the  wisest  way  the  will  expressed.  The  great  committee 
of  the  state  that  exists  to  formulate  and  carry  out  its  will 
is  the  government. 

1 135  U.S.  1,  64;  Wharton's  Digest,  2,  sees.  175,  198;  Moore, 
International  Law  Digest,  3,  820  ff. 


12  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

The  government  which  acts  for  the  state,  however  it 
is  selected,  represents  the  state  in  its  organized  capacity 
as  a  whole.  The  question  is  sometimes  asked  whether 
the  government  elected  by  a  majority  of  the  people  does 
not  represent  the  majority  and  not  also  the  minority. 
But  it  should  always  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  fundamental 
intention  in  any  election  is  not  to  favor  this  or  that  man  or 
even  to  determine  a  specific  policy;  it  is  rather  a  means 
in  a  democratic  state  of  finding  out  what  the  majority 
want.  When  the  will  of  the  majority  is  known,  all  the 
people,  members  of  the  minority  as  well  as  of  the  majority, 
want  that  will  carried  out.  So  the  President  or  the  Gov- 
ernor is  the  President  or  Governor,  not  of  one  party,  but 
of  the  entire  people,  whose  fundamental  principle  of  gov- 
ernment is  that  the  will  of  the  majority  is  to  rule. 
This  is  not  a  theoretical  principle.  It  is  a  very  practical 
one  which  means  peaceful  development  instead  of  revolu- 
tionary anarchy.  Democratic  government  has  been  a 
success  only  in  those  states  where  the  minority  has  been 
ready  to  accept  the  will  of  the  majority  as  that  of  the 
state  and  to  join  with  the  majority  in  the  enforcement  of 
law. 

The  state,  too,  it  should  always  be  borne  in  mind,  can 
act  as  a  state  only  through  its  government.  A  government 
official  holds  his  position  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  state ; 
and  when  the  majority  has  spoken  through  its  laws,  he, 
as  an  official,  has  no  choice  but  to  cany  out  this  will. 
When  we  are  disposed  to  criticize  the  acts  of  our  govern- 
ment officials,  we  should  first  question  ourselves  as  to 
whether  we  are  attacking  them  in  the  right  spirit.  They 
are  merely  in  their  minor  capacity  the  organ  of  the  state 
and  must  do  its  bidding.     On  the  other  hand,  it  can  do 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT      13 

nothing,  from  making  war  to  buying  supplies  for  its  armies 
or  training  the  children  of  its  citizens,  except  through  these 
government  officials. 

But,  in  our  recognition  of  government  officials  in  their 
representative  capacity,  we  must  be  careful  not  to  forget 
that  they  are  nevertheless  ordinary  men  with  personal 
attributes  and  with  the  human  elements  of  weakness  and 
strength.  The  men,  therefore,  who  compose  the  govern- 
ment for  the  time  being  give  character  to  the  state  and 
determine  the  nature  of  its  acts.  For  example,  the  per- 
sonality of  Andrew  Jackson  made  the  United  States  an 
entirely  different  kind  of  state  from  that  which  existed 
when,  let  us  say,  Buchanan  or  Monroe  was  President. 
And  can  any  one  imagine  that  Russia  during  the  fateful 
years  of  the  Russo-Japanese  War  and  the  revolution  that 
followed  it  was  at  all  the  same  kind  of  state  that  it  would 
have  been  had  the  chief  ruler  possessed  the  personal 
characteristics  of  Peter  the  Great?  Theoretically,  of 
course,  the  powers  of  President  Jackson  and  President 
Buchanan  were  the  same;  the  ruling  attributes  of  Peter 
the  Great  and  Nicholas  II  are  the  same ;  but  the  individual 
characteristics  of  the  men  holding  the  offices  have  in  great 
part  determined  the  will  and  in  consequence  the  history 
and  fate  of  the  nation  or  state. 

The  relation,  too,  of  the  government  to  each  individual 
citizen  is  important  and  often  overlooked.  In  a  demo- 
cratic government,  each  plays  his  part  in  selecting  the 
rulers  and  in  determining  what  the  laws  shall  be ;  but  the 
mere  fact  that  the  citizen  is  doing  his  part  in  selecting  the 
ruler  and  making  the  law  gives  him  no  privilege  at  all. 
As  against  the  state,  each  citizen  is  merely  a  subject.  The 
state  acts  upon  its  citizens  through  its  government,  the 


14  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

rulers,  and  the  citizens  have  no  special  rights  simply  be- 
cause they  have  selected  their  rulers.  They  are  in  the 
same  condition  as  citizens  of  states  whose  rulers  are 
hereditary,  unless  they  can  manage  by  a  new  election  to 
secure  rulers  whose  views  correspond  with  theirs. 

How  much  shall  the  state  do  in  the  way  of  directing  the 
lives  of  its  citizens  ?  Who  is  to  determine  the  scope  of  the 
action  of  the  state  and  say  whether  it  is  to  be  individualistic 
or  socialistic  ?  A  certain  group  of  thinkers,  individualists, 
believe  that  the  action  of  the  state  should  be  restricted  as 
much  as  possible ;  that  the  government  should  adopt  a  policy 
of  "hands  off,"  and  that  the  individual  should  be  allowed 
to  work  in  his  own  way  with  little  or  no  interference. 
Another  group,  the  socialists,  believe  that  the  state  should 
be  very  active  in  directing  the  citizens;  that  it  should 
control  practically  all  productive  property,  and  through 
its  government  should  direct  the  production  and  distribu- 
tion of  wealth  so  far  as  this  is  at  all  practicable.  There 
can  be  no  question  of  greater  importance,  and  we  ought 
not  to  be  frightened  by  a  word.  The  scope  of  action  of 
the  state  depends  upon  its  own  will,  that  is,  upon  our  will 
as  citizens  in  our  organized  political  entity.  If  the  state, 
that  is,  if  we  as  citizens,  in  our  organized  capacity,  wish 
to  do  much  for  ourselves  as  individuals,  it  is  surely  our 
privilege.  If  we  wish  to  do  little,  because  we  think  it  is 
a  better  training  for  us  and  our  descendants  to  be  com- 
pelled to  rely  upon  ourselves  as  individuals,  that  is  our 
privilege.  We  all  agree  that  our  government  should, 
for  its  support  and  for  carrying  out  improvements  which 
we  wish,  levy  taxes  —  1  per  cent,  2  per  cent,  or  more  — 
upon  our  property.  If,  however,  instead  of  doing  our  own 
work  through  our  hired  agents,  we  as  citizens  prefer  to  have 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT     15 

our  elected  representatives  do  more  work  for  us  (e.g.,  instead 
merely  of  furnishing  us  water,  furnish  us  also  light,  street 
car  service,  railroad  transportation  even,  free  of  charge), 
and  if  we  should  wish  to  pay  for  these  services  by  taxes, 
our  government  under  instructions  would  simply  be  carry- 
ing out  our  will,  even  though  it  should  necessitate  the 
payment  of  taxes  of  5  per  cent  or  10  per  cent  or  more. 
We  need  not  fear  any  action  in  either  direction  so  long  as 
we  are  sure  that  it  is  the  will  of  the  people  that  controls 
the  state  and  thus  the  government.  Under  those  cir- 
cumstances, neither  action  would  be  evil.  At  any  rate, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  citizens  of  that  day,  whatever  action 
was  taken  would  be  good. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  what  actions  it  shall  take  and  the 
scope  of  its  activities  will  be  determined  by  many  con- 
siderations dependent  upon  the  conditions  of  the  state 
itself.  In  a  country  dominated  by  military  necessities  like 
Germany,  so  situated  that  there  is  danger  of  its  very  ex- 
istence in  the  event  of  an  attack  from  either  Russia 
or  France,  it  must  be  in  a  position  to  concentrate 
its  army  at  any  point  almost  at  will.  In  consequence, 
the  railroads  of  that  country  have  been  laid  out  with 
reference  to  military  as  well  as  to  economic  needs,  and  they 
are  owned  and  managed  by  the  state.  If,  in  the  United 
States,  war  were  to  break  out  and  our  government  were 
to  need  the  services  of  a  railway,  it  would  be  practically 
essential  that  we  take  with  the  railway  its  personnel  for 
management,  even  for  operation,  or  else  it  would  become 
almost  entirely  ineffective.  In  Germany,  this  military 
necessity  being  fully  recognized,  the  railroad  managers 
are  government  officials  absolutely  under  government 
control.    Owing  to  the  different  circumstances,   we  are 


16  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

not  practically  compelled  toward  state  ownership  and 
management  of  railways  as  Germany  is. 

For  other  reasons  the  post-office  is  practically  every- 
where a  government  monopoly.  Posts  were  originally 
established  to  enable  the  government  to  send  state  des- 
patches promptly  and  secretly.  From  the  nature  of  the 
business  it  is  essential  that  private  communications  also  be 
afforded  the  utmost  measure  of  secrecy,  and  this  can 
probably  better  be  accomplished  through  absolute  govern- 
ment control.  Moreover,  if,  as  in  the  United  States,  the 
general  spread  of  intelligence  and  the  development  of  a  sys- 
tem of  giving  prompt  information  on  all  public  questions  even 
in  remote  districts  be  adopted,  it  is  practically  necessary 
that  there  be  government  ownership  and  management. 
In  remote  country  districts  the  postal  lines  never  pay 
their  expenses,  but  the  losses  here  are  to  a  large  extent 
borne  by  the  profits  made  in  great  cities.  Were  the  post- 
office  to  be  run  on  a  profit-making  basis  under  private 
management,  a  very  large  proportion  of  our  rural  districts 
would  be  entirely  deprived  of  postal  facilities.  Under  the 
government  we  are  willing  to  sacrifice  profit  to  the  neces- 
sities of  keeping  our  public  well  informed. 

But  in  different  countries,  whatever  the  nature  of  the  busi- 
ness, it  is  the  state  itself  which  determines  whether  it  shall  go 
ahead  in  this  socialistic  direction  or  not.  It  is  evident  to 
any  thoughtful  person  that  not  merely  the  general  conditions 
of  the  state  from  the  economic  or  military  points  of  view, 
but  also  the  kind  of  industry  under  consideration,  the 
care  or  intelligence  of  the  citizens,  as  well  as  their  un- 
selfishness, must  all  be  taken  into  account  to  enable  the 
state  to  determine  whether  or  not  it  is  best  for  it  to  secure 
and  maintain  ownership  and  control  of  a  given  industry. 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT      17 

But  we  are  sometimes  asked:  "Supposing  the  state 
makes  a  mistake  in  what  it  wishes  to  do,  what  then?  Is 
the  state  sure  to  be  right?" 

Certainly  not.  The  state  is  made  up  of  all  of  us,  and  all 
of  us  may  make  mistakes,  as  we  know  any  of  us  is  likely 
to  do.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  any  of  us  makes  a  mis- 
take, and  as  a  result  of  experience  we  find  it  out,  we  are 
likely  to  correct  it  thereafter.  So  the  state,  when  it  makes 
a  mistake  and  finds  it  out,  adopts  a  different  policy.  Let 
us  not  forget  that  the  state  is  not  a  higher  thing  than  all 
of  us  or  at  any  rate  than  the  best  of  us,  and  it  is  equally 
likely  that  the  actions  of  all  of  us  in  the  long  run  will  be 
determined  in  the  same  way  as  the  action  of  any  of  us  is 
determined. 

Again,  it  is  asked:  "Is  it  a  desirable  thing  that  the 
ignorant  people  of  the  country  be  allowed  to  suffer  when 
a  few  people  know  better?  Should  not  the  intelligent 
people  do  what  they  can  to  prevent  the  ignorant  people 
from  suffering  through  the  results  of  their  ignorance?" 

Each  one  of  the  more  intelligent  people  has  certainly 
the  same  right  to  exercise  his  influence  as  has  the  ignorant ; 
and  if  a  comparatively  few  people  by  virtue  of  their  greater 
degree  of  information  and  knowledge  can  save  the  mass  of 
the  ignorant  from  their  mistakes,  they  ought  to  do  so. 
The  state  will  do  as  it  pleases  as  the  result  of  the  influence 
of  the  various  classes  of  people,  each  working  on  the  other. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  intelligent  class  to  prevent  as  far  as 
possible  the  ignorant  from  suffering  as  a  result  of  their 
ignorance. 

Before  undertaking  in  later  chapters  to  discuss  specific 
lines  of  the  state's  activity,  we  should  consider  briefly 
the  nature  of  the  premises  needed   in  political  reasoning 


18  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

and  the  methods  to  be  followed  in  our  studies.  The 
importance  of  the  study  is,  of  course,  conceded. 

The  most  fundamental  factor  as  a  premise  for  our  reason- 
ing is  human  nature  in  all  its  infinite  variety  and  varia- 
bility. Because  one  man  in  certain  conditions  acts  in  a 
specific  way,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  another  will 
under  the  same  circumstances  act  the  same.  Simply 
because  an  individual  acts  in  this  way  to-day,  it  is  not 
perfectly  certain  that  he  will  take  the  same  action  to- 
morrow. When  we  are  dealing  primarily  with  human 
beings,  we  cannot  be  quite  certain  what  will  happen  next, 
although  when  we  deal  with  individuals  in  great  numbers, 
so  that,  as  the  wit  has  said,  the  person  under  consideration 
is  not  a  man  but  "  a  statistic,"  we  may  reach  some  very 
general  conclusions.  But  our  conclusions  must  be  very 
general  in  their  nature.  An  astronomer  can  predict  with 
almost  absolute  precision  the  movement  of  a  world;  a 
statesman  cannot  calculate  accurately  the  rural  vote  of  any 
county  in  the  state.     He  may  make  a  good  estimate. 

But  not  merely  must  the  nature  of  the  human 
individual  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  student  of 
politics  has  also  to  weigh  all  the  various  factors  that  in- 
fluence human  beings  in  their  decisions  and  that  determine 
what  the  nature  of  their  civilization  shall  be.  It  is  im- 
possible to  have  a  highly  developed  state  at  the  North 
Pole.  It  would  be  impossible  to  secure  the  economic 
conditions  necessary  for  the  development  of  such  a  civili- 
zation. 

We  know  the  old  saying,  and  one  with  much  truth  in  it, 
that  a  mountainous  country  is  the  cradle  of  liberty.  In 
Switzerland  a  small  group  of  men  can  hold  their  own 
against  an  army ;  and  under  such  circumstances  we  may 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT   19 

expect  to  find  a  more  liberal  form  of  government  than 
in  the  great  plains,  where  standing  armies  may  readily 
be  kept  and  manceuvered  and  where,  in  consequence,  the 
great  despotisms  of  history  have  been  found.  We  shall 
find  some  exceptions,  but,  generally  speaking,  the  cli- 
mate, the  topography  of  a  country,  its  fauna,  its  flora, 
and  the  other  factors  that  influence  its  economic  condi- 
tions shape,  to  a  very  considerable  extent,  the  nature  of 
the  state  and  of  government. 

Different  races  of  men  seem  to  have  different  personal 
characteristics.  In  consequence  we  may  not  expect  the 
same  type  of  civilization  or  of  government  in  countries 
where  races  differ.  Probably  many  generations  would 
pass  before  institutions  that  seem  to  be  adapted  to  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race  could  find  a  home  among  any  people 
of  the  Orient,  or  vice  versa. 

Moreover,  social  institutions  —  religious,  educational 
—  have  their  influence  upon  political  conditions.  In 
Russia  for  the  past  thirty  or  forty  years  perhaps  the 
chief  single  influence  that  has  enabled  the  Russian 
hierarchy  to  control  the  common  people  has  been 
the  Greek  Church,  a  social  institution  that  has  reached 
the  people  and  that  could  be  used  by  the  government 
in  controlling  them.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
United  States,  there  can  be  no  question  that  our  free 
public  schools  and  our  many  colleges,  adapted  to  meet 
the  needs  of  the  poorer  people,  have  had  a  very  great 
effect  in  determining  our  politics.  Of  late  years,  too,  we 
have  found  that  the  forms  of  our  business  organization, 
our  railways,  our  great  corporations,  our  concentration  of 
wealth  into  the  hands  of  a  few,  have  had  an  influence 
in  shaping  our  laws  as  well  as  in  determining  what  the 


20  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

methods  of  our  politics  should  become.  All  these  factors, 
as  influences  that  affect  the  minds  of  the  citizens,  will 
ultimately,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  determine  the  policy 
of  the  state. 

In  considering  the  methods  of  study  that  should  be 
followed  in  handling  these  premises  of  politics,  we  shall 
find  that  to  a  very  great  extent  we  must  develop  a  habit 
of  introspection  and  then  judge  other  people  by  ourselves. 
But  if  we  are  to  assume  that  other  people  think  as  we  do, 
we  shall  need  to  cultivate  and  qualify  our  judgment  of 
them  by  developing  in  ourselves  the  habit  of  learning 
their  view  of  us  by  putting  ourselves  into  their  places  and 
asking  ourselves  the  questions,  What  would  I  do?  What 
are  my  methods  under  these  circumstances?  And  still 
further,  we  should  ask  how  our  methods  would  appear 
to  other  persons.  We  must  form  the  habit  of  looking  at 
ourselves  from  the  outside  if  we  are  to  use  ourselves  as  a 
criterion  for  judging  the  acts  and  methods  of  others. 
John  Wesley,  it  is  reported,  as  he  was  passing  along  the 
street  one  day  and  saw  a  poor  drunken  wretch  reeling 
toward  the  ditch,  exclaimed,  "But  for  the  grace  of  God 
there  goes  John  Wesley."  Now  John  Wesley  had  that 
power  of  sympathy  with  other  people  and  the  ability  to 
judge  them  in  an  unprejudiced  way  that  made  him  the 
great  popular  leader.  He  could  not  have  organized  and 
carried  to  success  the  great  church  of  which  he  was  the 
founder  without  possessing  that  power.  We  must  judge 
human  nature  in  that  way. 

We  need  also  to  make  a  comparative  study  of  other 
states  and  of  other  governments,  present  and  past.  We 
need  to  study  geographic  conditions.  We  can  scarcely 
expect,   however,   to  use  to  any  noteworthy  degree  the 


NATURE  OF  THE  STATE  AND  OF  GOVERNMENT  21 

method  of  experiment  so  common  in  the  natural  sciences. 
I  remember  that  some  years  ago,  in  Chicago,  a  socialist 
friend  of  mine  asked  me  if  I  was  ready  to  contribute 
something  toward  the  making  of  a  socialistic  experiment 
in  the  state  of  Washington.  He  said  that  Mr.  Debs  was 
ready  to  go  to  Washington  and  take  an  active  part  in 
organizing  that  state  on  a  socialistic  basis,  provided  that 
money  enough  could  be  secured  and  enough  socialists 
persuaded  to  emigrate  to  Washington,  so  that  as  a  social- 
istic colony  they  could  control  the  state  and  show  to  the 
world  the  results  of  socialism  as  carried  out  in  an  actual 
experiment.  I  told  him  that  if  they  could  show  me  a 
serious  likelihood  of  securing  enough  socialists  who  would 
work  together  in  harmony  to  control  the  state  of  Wash- 
ington, I  would  gladly  contribute,  because  Washington 
was  a  good  long  way  from  my  home  in  New  York,  and 
I  should  like  nothing  better  than  to  have  the  socialist 
experiment  carefully  tried  out  at  that  distance,  so  that 
one  could  see  with  certainty  how  those  plans  would  work 
in  actual  practice. 

While,  of  course,  we  cannot  make  experiments  with  the 
same  degree  of  definiteness  and  completeness  as  in 
the  natural  sciences,  nevertheless,  by  laws  that  have  a 
limited  application  locally  or  in  time,  by  a  variety  of  laws 
that  are  passed  in  different  states,  and  by  various  ordi- 
nances passed  in  different  cities  under  similar  conditions, 
we  do  obtain  some  conditions  remotely  like  an  experi- 
ment in  natural  science,  and  from  these  experiences  we 
may  gather  valuable  information. 

Of  greater  importance,  perhaps,  than  any  of  the  rela- 
tions heretofore  mentioned  is  that  between  politics  and 
ethics.     In  our  political  studies  it  is  important  that  we 


22  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

keep  the  fields  distinct.  We  should  not  let  our  observa- 
tion of  what  the  facts  of  politics  are  be  warped  by  our 
beliefs  or  prejudices  as  to  what  the  facts  ought  to  be.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  when  we  turn  from  the  activities  of 
the  student  of  politics  to  those  of  the  statesman  whose 
duty  it  is  to  put  into  practice  the  principles  which  his 
studies  have  made  clear,  we  should  never  let  our  sense  of 
the  practical  or  immediately  personal  benefits  which  our 
knowledge  of  the  weaknesses  of  human  nature  might  lead 
us  to  secure  for  ourselves  or  our  faction,  blind  us  to  the 
still  greater  advantages  that  are  bound  in  the  long  run 
to  come  to  the  state  as  a  whole  if  the  statesman  keeps 
clearly  in  mind  the  vision  of  what  ought  to  be. 


II 

THE   POLITICAL  MOTIVES 

It  is  a  very  elementary  principle  of  pedagogics  that 
every  act  is  determined  by  some  feeling  or  motive.  If, 
then,  we  as  citizens  are  to  attempt  to  exert  some  influence 
upon  political  conditions  and  actions  in  our  state,  it  would 
be  well  for  us  to  study  the  mental  mainspring,  the  motives 
for  the  actions  of  the  community.  As  was  intimated  in  the 
last  chapter,  on  account  of  the  complexity  of  the  subject 
we  may  not  be  entirely  successful  in  our  analysis,  but  we 
should  at  any  rate  make  the  attempt. 

It  should  be  recognized  at  the  outset  that  every  person 
in  the  community  has  some  political  influence,  even 
though  very  often  this  is  unconscious.  We  speak  of 
the  very  great  influence  exerted  by  the  man  called  the 
"boss"  of  any  state,  and  most  of  us  could  readily  give 
illustrations  of  his  dominating  power.  He  is  a  very 
influential  member  of  the  body  politic.  If  a  wealthy 
manufacturer  wishes  to  have  his  business  improved  by 
some  change  in  the  tariff,  it  is  very  probable  that  he  will 
be  active  in  bringing  about  that  result.  If  the  wife  of  an 
influential  senator  has  a  longing  for  a  sealskin  coat,  that 
may  well  affect  his  feeling  regarding  our  relations  with 
Great  Britain  in  connection  with  the  seal  fisheries.  No 
more  persuasive  voice  than  that  produced  by  the  hunger 
of  a  working-man's  babe  has  been  enough  to  effect  a  change 
in  labor  legislation. 

23 


24  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

If  we  were  to  attempt  anything  like  a  complete  study 
of  the  human  motives  which  determine  political  action, 
we  should  need  to  investigate  practically  all  of  the  motives 
of  every  individual  in  the  community.  What  are  the 
motives,  for  example,  of  the  burglar  whose  crime  has  an 
anti-social  tendency?  We  may  not  know  just  what  those 
motives  are,  —  they  are  often  complex,  —  but  his  acts  and 
similar  acts  produce  political  activity.  If  we  wish  a  full  ex- 
planation of  this  activity,  we  must  inquire  into  the  burglar's 
motives.  What  are  the  motives  of  the  preacher  who 
attempts  to  elevate  society  religiously  and  morally  by  his 
influence?  The  results  of  his  actions  are  likely  to  be  felt 
in  political  circles.  The  lawyer  who  attempts  to  see  to  it 
that  the  laws  are  framed  by  a  congress  of  experts;  the 
farmer  who  tries  to  have  a  tax  levied  on  oleomargarine; 
the  working-man  who  is  eager  for  an  eight-hour  law,  — 
all  bring  their  influences  to  bear,  and  anything  like 
a  satisfactory  explanation  of  political  activity  must  lead 
us  back  to  the  motives  of  these  men  whose  influence  has 
shaped  the  laws. 

It  would,  of  course,  not  be  practicable  to  attempt  a 
complete  analysis  of  these  motives.  Many  men  are 
only  semiconscious  as  regards  their  political  influence; 
most  people  act  not  from  one,  but  from  many  motives, 
and  it  would  be  impossible  to  make  a  thorough  analysis; 
but  it  is  possible  and  desirable  to  select  the  ordinary 
common  motives  that  exert  possibly  the  greatest  influence 
in  political  affairs.  We  shall  do  best,  also,  to  speak 
only  of  people  consciously  active  in  politics,  —  the  rulers 
who  make,  interpret,  and  enforce  our  laws,  and  the  voting 
citizens  who  take  an  active  part  in  selecting  these  rulers. 

We  should  be  careful,  too,  to  keep  in  mind  the  real 


THE   POLITICAL  MOTIVES  25 

rulers,  not  merely  the  nominal  ones;  the  real  forms  of 
government,  not  merely  those  written  in  the  constitution. 
In  the  books,  Russia  and  Germany  and  Great  Britain  are 
all  monarchies,  but  there  is  little  likeness  between  the 
forms  and  activities  of  the  governments  of  these  separate 
states.  England  is  perhaps  as  largely  a  republic  as  is 
the  United  States.  Let  us  not  be  misled  by  words; 
let  us  see  the  real  forms  of  government  that  we  are  studying 
and  recognize  the  real  rulers.  There  have  been  times 
when  the  city  of  New  York  has  been  governed  by  an  oli- 
garchy, representing  only  a  small  number  of  men,  since 
the  leaders  of  political  parties  have  been  able  to  arrange 
the  conditions  under  which  we  have  registered  and  voted 
in  such  a  way  as  practically  to  control  our  political  activ- 
ity. This  was  oligarchic  rule  by  men  without  official 
position.  The  state  of  New  York  has  at  times  been  under 
the  sway  of  a  boss  who  has  directed  legislation  and  even 
at  times  perhaps  the  work  of  the  executive  as  rigidly  or 
more  rigidly  than  the  Czar  of  Russia  has  controlled  his 
state. 

But  when  we  consider  the  motives  of  rulers,  the  real 
rulers,  whether  those  named  in  the  laws  or  not,  we  ought 
not  to  forget  that  they  all,  no  matter  how  despotic  they 
may  be  in  name,  are  nevertheless  controlled  to  a  consider- 
able degree  by  popular  sentiment.  The  Sultan  of  Turkey 
has  limits  set  to  despotism;  assassination  or  threatened 
assassination  is  one  means  of  fixing  the  limit.  The  Czar 
of  Russia  acts  only  within  very  definite  bounds,  whatever 
the  legal  theory.  Likewise  the  bosses,  even  the  most 
despotic  ones  in  the  worst  times  in  any  of  our  states,  have 
had  limits  set  by  the  public  sentiment  of  the  community 
beyond  which  they  dared  not  go. 


26  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

Generally  speaking,  too,  however  foolish  or  corrupt 
even  their  acts  may  seem,  most  politicians,  whether  rulers 
or  citizens,  act  conscientiously.  Much  depends,  of  course, 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  word  "conscientious,"  but  there 
is  little  doubt  that  very  few  acts,  even  those  considered 
criminal,  are  committed  until  the  doer  has  given  to  him- 
self an  excuse  for  his  act.  Many  a  local  political  manager 
would  not  hesitate  to  say  that  he  has  bought  votes  directly, 
or,  at  any  rate,  furnished  the  means  to  buy  them.  Many 
political  leaders  speak  freely  of  political  tricks  that  they 
have  performed  in  order  to  secure  the  success  of  their 
party.  I  have  had  local  leaders  of  political  parties  tell 
me  that  they  always  made  it  a  point  to  see  to  it,  through 
spies  and  hirelings  in  the  opposite  party,  that  they  secured 
the  nomination  of  a  weak  man  in  that  party  as  readily 
as  that  of  a  strong  man  in  their  own.  Such  men  do  not 
hesitate  to  tell  of  such  acts;  but  if  you  inquire  how  it  is 
that  they  as  honorable  men  can  do  these  things,  they  say : 
"Why,  these  acts  are  done  for  our  party.  We  must  do 
them;  the  other  party  stands  ready  to  do  them;  it  is  a 
greater  harm  to  the  state  to  have  the  other  party  win 
than  for  our  party  to  do  these  things."  We  must  not 
forget  that  in  almost  any  line  of  activity  people  make 
success  an  excuse  to  themselves  as  well  as  to  others  for 
their  actions. 

Mr.  Z.  R.  Brockway,  for  many  years  the  distin- 
guished superintendent  of  the  Elmira  Reformatory,  the 
man  who  perhaps  has  a  longer  and  more  valuable 
experience  in  dealing  with  criminals  than  any  other  person 
in  the  country,  when  asked  whether  the  criminals  under 
his  charge  were  sorry  for  their  crimes,  replied,  "Yes,  they 
are  sorry  they  have  been  caught;   I  have  yet  to  find  the 


THE  POLITICAL   MOTIVES  27 

first  man  who  will  not  find  an  excuse  for  his  action.  .  .  . 
Generally  they  say  such  things  as  this  :  'Well,  society  owes 
me  a  living.  I  can't  get  my  living  easier.  This  rich  man 
didn't  earn  his  property;  he  is  taking  it  by  trickery; 
it  is  right  that  I  take  part  of  it  for  myself/  —  and  so  on." 
So,  when  we  are  speaking  of  political  motives  of  either 
rulers  or  citizens,  let  us  remember  that  whether  their 
acts  are  honest  or  not,  they  will  excuse  them.  They  often 
say,  "If  the  opposite  party  could  be  prevented  from  doing 
such  acts,  I  would  be  glad  myself  not  to  do  them."  The 
question  becomes  an  extremely  absorbing  one  in  ethics. 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  a  general  in  time  of  battle, 
though  he  must  keep  his  given  word,  is  justified  in  mis- 
leading his  enemy  by  any  kind  of  trickery  possible.  Some 
distinguished  writers  in  politics  are  equally  ready  to  take 
the  position  that  a  statesman,  for  the  sake  of  his  country, 
is  justified  in  misleading  the  rulers  of  foreign  states  in  a 
way  that  no  individual  would  be  justified  in  misleading 
one  of  his  neighbors,  simply  because  the  statesman  is 
acting  not  for  himself,  but  for  the  good  of  his  state. 
"How  much  better,"  they  say,  "it  is  to  secure  this  ad- 
vantage from  the  foreign  state  by  deception  rather  than 
by  war  which  might  result  if  we  did  not  secure  this 
advantage.  War  would  destroy  hundreds  or  thousands 
of  lives  and  millions  or  billions  of  property.  Let  us  take 
the  lesser  evil  rather  than  the  greater." 

Whether  right  or  wrong,  the  people  who  perform  these 
acts  generally  do  excuse  themselves  for  them.  The  rulers 
of  states  frequently  act  upon  the  hypothesis  that  the 
moral  code  for  rulers  is  and  ought  to  be  different  from  the 
moral  code  of  individuals.  And  yet  it  is  gratifying  to  note 
that  this  feeling  is  doubtless  changing. 


28  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

With  these  considerations  in  mind,  what  is  the  most 
important  motive  of  most  rulers?  Is  it  not  to  hold  their 
position  and  to  secure  and  extend  their  power?  How  they 
will  secure  this  end,  the  means  they  will  employ,  will 
depend  to  a  very  great  extent  upon  their  training  and  upon 
the  circumstances  and  customs  of  the  country  in  which 
they  live.  In  uncivilized  states  the  method  of  the  ruler 
will  be  to  remove  his  opponent  by  assassination.  In 
civilized  states,  political  opponents  seldom  take  life;  but 
they  will  treacherously  destroy  reputations  without  scruple. 
Whether  the  ruler  is  justified  in  wishing  to  develop  and 
extend  his  power  depends  very  largely  upon  the  use  that 
he  will  make  of  it.  If  we  wish  our  state  to  be  of  a  high 
type,  our  rulers  must  have  a  high  purpose  in  their  ruling. 
When  rulers  hold  their  position  through  the  favor  of  the 
people,  we  might  expect  them  to  keep  more  prominently 
in  mind  the  welfare  of  their  people  than  would  an  heredi- 
tary ruler,  especially  one  who  believed  in  the  divine  right  of 
kings  and  who  would  perhaps  naturally  become  somewhat 
arbitrary.  Moreover,  those  born  to  position,  as  are  heredi- 
tary rulers,  those  whose  position  is  fixed  for  life,  are  more 
likely  to  be  swayed  by  a  desire  to  gratify  their  lower 
tastes  and  passions  than  those  whose  term  is  short. 

But  among  the  hereditary  rulers  have  also  been  found 
many  who  wish  to  keep  and  extend  their  power  in 
order  to  gratify  and  cultivate  their  tastes  in  literature 
and  art  and  morals,  to  begin  with,  and  then  to  train  their 
people  along  these  lines.  It  may  very  well  be  that  the 
ruler  who  desires  to  strengthen  his  power  may  have  good 
motives  animating  him. 

It  is  questionable  if  you  would  find  among  any  elective 
rulers    men    more    conscientiously    devoted  to   the   wel- 


THE  POLITICAL   MOTIVES  29 

fare  of  their  people  as  they  see  it  and  who  will  work  more 
earnestly  to  secure  that  welfare  than  the  present  rulers 
of  England  and  Germany  and  their  immediate  predecessors. 
So  far  as  can  be  seen,  they  live  lives  of  the  most  earnest, 
unselfish  devotion  to  the  good  of  their  people.  They  have 
been  trained  that  way.  They  recognize  their  power;  they 
wish  to  extend  that  power ;  but  they  wield  and  cultivate 
that  power  that  they  may  the  better  devote  their  energies 
to  what  they  believe  to  be  the  good  of  their  people. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  boss,  the  real  ruler,  who  has  secured 
his  power  directly  by  chicanery  of  some  kind  or  by  playing 
upon  the  weaknesses  of  human  nature,  and  who  is  relying 
upon  those  weaknesses  to  keep  it,  is  likely  to  be  animated 
primarily  by  a  selfish  motive.  He  gets  his  power  and  he 
wishes  to  extend  it  in  order  to  further  his  own  selfish  ends 
and  those  of  his  friends.  And  this  perhaps  is  the  real 
distinction  that  we  can  ordinarily  make  between  a  boss 
and  a  leader  of  the  best  type.  The  man  who  stands  at 
the  head  of  his  party  or  at  the  head  of  his  country  must 
keep  the  welfare  of  his  people  in  mind  in  his  use  of  power 
if  he  is  to  be  called  a  leader,  a  statesman,  or  a  patriot. 

We  should  not  forget  that  as  a  matter  of  course  almost 
every  ruler  in  an  elective  government  has  had  to  seek 
his  position,  and  most  of  them  have  had  to  work  in  order 
to  hold  their  position.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  has 
been  the  unselfish  purpose  of  a  politician  or  statesman  to 
serve  his  people,  if  it  has  been  his  previous  training  and 
his  record  as  an  unselfish  citizen  that  has  pushed  him  for- 
ward until  it  has  become  evident  to  him  as  well  as  to  his 
people  that  he  can  do  more  good  for  the  public  in  holding 
office  than  in  remaining  a  private  citizen,  surely  he  is 
justified  in  seeking  office.     If  his  motive  has  been  patriotism 


30  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

from  the  beginning  and  his  manifest  aim  in  securing  and 
extending  power  in  office  is  patriotism,  he  is  justified, 
even  though  his  motive  in  getting  that  power  is  in  some 
degree  selfish. 

These  principles  apply  not  merely  to  government ;  they 
are  general  principles  that  apply  in  business  as  well  as  in 
politics,  and  this  makes  one  more  certain  that  the  analysis 
is  correct.  Does  not  the  president  of  a  university  try  to 
extend  his  power  and  secure  his  control?  We  believe 
that  the  presidents  of  most  of  the  great  universities  are 
men  of  the  type  of  statesmen  of  the  better  class  who  wish 
to  use  their  power  for  the  good  of  thousands  who  come  under 
them,  but  they  believe  they  can  do  better  if  they  have 
more  power  and  are  not  too  much  limited  in  its  exercise. 
So  with  the  heads  of  the  great  corporations,  the  presi- 
dents of  railroads  or  great  manufacturing  industries,  —  they 
try  to  hold  and  strengthen  their  power  sometimes  from 
selfish  motives,  but  frequently  from  the  desire  to  render 
service  to  the  stockholders  of  the  corporations  of  which 
they  are  the  head.  They  have  had  so  careful  a  training 
that  they  believe  that  they  can  do  more  in  this  position 
than  in  any  other  to  render  a  public  service. 

The  greatest  of  the  rulers  have  simply  sought  to  render 
service  to  the  public,  and  their  success  in  rendering  those 
services  have  pushed  them  into  their  positions.  Their 
purposes  have  been  above  office,  but  they  have  not  hesi- 
tated to  take  and  use  the  office.  The  same  principle 
that  applies  to  the  heads  of  governments  applies  likewise 
to  members  of  legislatures,  to  the  higher  judges,  to  mem- 
bers of  societies  of  whatever  kind. 

In  speaking  of  the  motives  of  the  individual  citizens, 
we  need  to  recognize  the  fact  that  we  often  act  politically 


THE  POLITICAL  MOTIVES  31 

when  we  are  not  really  conscious  of  political  activity. 
Moreover,  we  should  not  forget  that  in  questioning  motives, 
few  of  us  perform  any  act  from  any  single  motive;  but 
many,  many  motives  determine  most  of  our  acts. 

Professor  Giddings  has  mentioned  as  perhaps  the  most 
fundamental  influence  that  tends  to  create  society  and 
states,  the  "  consciousness  of  kind."  We  do  not  need  to  go 
so  deeply  into  the  analysis  of  beings  of  different  kinds 
as  does  he,  but  we  may  well  recognize  the  fact  that  this 
feeling  that  certain  people  are  like  us,  are  of  our  type 
and  kind,  and  that  certain  other  people  are  unlike  us 
and  are  not  of  our  kind,  has  a  most  profound  influence 
on  political  activity.  Narrow-minded  people  in  rec- 
ognizing the  difference  between  themselves  and  others  are 
likely  to  feel  that  this  difference  means  inequality,  a  high 
class  and  a  low  class.  More  thoughtful  people  in  recogniz- 
ing the  difference  do  not  necessarily  think  of  superiority 
or  inferiority,  —  only  of  the  difference.  But  after  all  we 
must  recognize  that  most  of  us  do  think  rather  better  of 
ourselves  than  we  do  of  others.  In  consequence,  most  of  us 
are  likely  to  put  those  who  are  different  from  ourselves  into 
a  class  lower  than  we  are,  although  very  frequently  they 
do  not  belong  to  a  lower  class.  It  is  this  influence,  this 
consciousness  of  kind,  that  determines  to  a  very  great 
extent  our  race  problems,  which  are  among  the  most  dif- 
ficult and  dangerous   questions  that  arise  in  politics. 

We  may  regret,  most  of  us  do  regret,  the  race  conflicts, 
slight  as  they  are,  relatively  speaking,  as  yet,  that  we 
have  seen  on  the  Pacific  Coast  between  the  Chinese  and 
Japanese  and.  Hindoos  and  the  Americans ;  but  let  us  not 
for  a  moment  underestimate  this  fact,  that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  the  American  people  and  the  Chinese 


32  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

and  Japanese  and  Hindoos.  People  that  are  broad- 
minded  enough  to  see  the  facts  will  not  argue  from  this 
difference,  superiority  or  inferiority;  they  will  recognize 
simply  the  difference.  As  the  more  ignorant  Americans 
argue  from  the  differences  that  the  Chinese  or  the  Japanese 
or  the  Hindoos  are  inferior  to  the  Americans,  so  in  their 
home  countries  the  Chinese  and  the  Japanese  and  the 
Hindoos  consider  the  Americans  inferior.  It  would  be 
easy  to  show,  from  very  many  evidences  of  the  ancient 
and  high  civilization  of  China  and  Japan  and  India,  that 
these  differences  do  not  in  any  sense  prove  inferiority  or 
superiority.  They  are  merely  differences  in  civilization 
and  politics.  Nevertheless,  we,  as  students  of  politics, 
must  recognize  it  as  a  fact  that  the  home  people  will  in- 
variably consider  themselves  the  superiors  and  any  differ- 
ing race  inferior,  and  we  must  realize  that,  though  it  is  not 
intentional,  out  of  this  consciousness  of  kind  and  this  rec- 
ognition of  differences  race  questions  will  arise  that  must 
be  met.  This  is  no  excuse  for  doing  an  injustice;  it  is  an 
explanation  of  the  difficulties.  In  dealing,  then,  with  the 
ignorant  people,  the  common  people,  we  must  expect  that 
this  consciousness  of  difference  will  be  taken  as  implying 
superiority  and  inferiority;  but  may  we  not  hope,  if  not 
expect,  that  the  more  intelligent  and  thoughtful  among 
the  populations  of  either  race  will  not  so  interpret  the 
difference  ?  I  recall  that  poem  of  Kipling's  regarding  the 
East  and  West.  It  is  not  merely  good  poetry,  it  is 
good  pohtics. 

"  Oh,  East  is  East,  and  West  is  West, 
And  never  the  Twain  shall  meet, 
Till  Earth  and  Sky  stand  presently 
At  God's  great  Judgment  Seat; " 


THE  POLITICAL  MOTIVES  33 

He  sees  the  difference,  but  as  a  thinker  and  poet  con- 
tinues :  — 

"  But  there  is  neither  East  nor  West, 
Border,  nor  Breed,  nor  Birth, 
When  two  strong  men  stand  face  to  face 
Tho'  they  come  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  !  " 

That  is  good  politics.  We  shall  always  have  these  race 
differences  and  these  race  feelings  until  earth  and  sky 
"stand  presently  round  God's  great  Judgment  Seat";  but 
we  shall  also  have  statesmen,  thinkers,  scholars,  intelligent 
people  who  will  recognize  the  fact  that  two  strong  men  are 
equal  and  that  people  of  equal  intelligence  and  equal 
conscientiousness  should  deal  fairly  one  with  another 
anywhere  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  The  statesman,  how- 
ever, must  recognize  the  further  fact  that  whatever  ought 
to  be  done,  he  must  study  the  force  of  prejudice  as  well 
as  the  force  of  reason,  and  that  he  cannot  ignore  prejudice 
as  a  motive  force  in  the  state. 

Another  characteristic  of  human  nature,  perhaps  even 
more  fundamental  than  the  consciousness  of  kind  and  the 
recognition  of  differences,  is  the  mental  characteristic  that 
has  so  often  been  called  "  inertia,"  mental  and  moral,  but  it 
might  about  as  well  be  called  human  laziness.  It  is  much 
easier  for  most  of  us  to  let  other  people  do  our  thinking 
than  to  think  for  ourselves.  It  is  so  much  easier  for  us  to 
drift  on  in  the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  now  placed, 
with  the  associations  now  round  about  us,  than  to  take 
positive  action,  that  most  of  us  make  little  effort  to  change 
our  circumstances.  Political  leaders  usually  say  that 
you  can  safely  count  upon  nine  out  of  ten  voters  staying 
where  they  are  put  in  politics,  that  the  doubtful  voters 
are,  say  ten  per  cent,  and  that  they  arc  in  part  the  corrupt 


34  THE  PRINCIPLES   OF   POLITICS 

and  ignorant,  in  part  the  conscientious  thinking  men.  The 
average  man  in  politics  drifts  as  a  boy  into  his  political 
party;  then,  regardless  of  the  changes  in  its  policies,  he 
stands  by  its  name  and  organization  throughout  his  life. 

This  characteristic  is  fundamental  in  human  nature.  It  is 
found  not  merely  in  politics,  but  also  in  business,  in  religion. 
It  is,  relatively  speaking,  easy  to  find  a  good  workman, 
a  skilled  mechanic;  it  is  very  difficult  to  find  a  man  who 
will  thoughtfully  study  his  work  and  see  the  relations 
existing  between  the  different  parts  of  the  article  that  he 
is  manufacturing  and  the  different  departments  of  the 
business  in  which  he  is  engaged,  so  that  he  could  properly 
organize  and  direct  the  work  as  superintendent.  Among 
the  merchants  nine  men  out  of  ten  carry  on  their  business 
exactly  as  they  learned  it  as  boys;  the  tenth  man  who 
thinks  about  his  work  and  his  business  in  an  original  way 
becomes  either  a  merchant  prince  or  a  bankrupt. 

Likewise,  in  religion,  nine  out  of  ten  of  us  go  to  the  same 
church  which  our  fathers  joined  before  us  and  adopt  the 
same  forms  of  worship.  We  take  part  in  the  same  ordi- 
nances without  ever  investigating  their  origin  or  thinking 
out  their  exact  significance.  We  feel  guilty  if  we  neglect  or 
change  the  observance  of  certain  forms  of  church  worship, 
and  righteous  if  we  follow  them ;  and  we  are  somewhat  too 
much  disposed  to  criticize  adversely  those  who  may  as 
children  have  been  taught  different  forms,  and  who  now 
like  ourselves,  persist  in  following  the  habits  of  childhood. 

This  characteristic,  it  is  seen,  is  fundamental,  and  being 
so  uniform  in  its  working,  it  becomes  a  most  important 
fact  in  political  life.  It  is  this  characteristic  that  gives 
the  boss  his  power.  The  ignorant  common  men  can  be 
counted  upon  to  stay  where  they  are  put.     If  you  can  get 


THE  POLITICAL  MOTIVES  35 

a  young  college  boy  or  working  apprentice  two  or  three 
years  before  he  has  a  right  to  vote  to  carry  a  banner  and 
march  in  the  procession  of  the  Republican  party,  the 
chances  are  large  that  he  will  be  a  Republican  as  long  as 
he  lives.  About  the  time  that  he  gets  to  be  eighty,  he 
will  be  found  standing  up  in  political  meetings  and  de- 
claring with  pride  that  never  in  his  life  has  he  voted  any 
but  the  Republican  ticket.  He  does  not  realize  that  or- 
dinarily such  a  statement  means  that  he  is  openly  declar- 
ing himself  a  non-thinking  man.  I  do  not  wish  to  be 
misunderstood.  Party  politics  in  our  country  I  consider 
a  necessity,  but  whenever  a  man  believes  that  the  issues 
adopted  by  his  party  or  its  standard  of  candidates  is  wrong 
or  inferior  to  those  of  another  party,  he  should  abandon 
his  own.  Every  voter  should  insist  upon  it  that  he  help 
do  his  party's  thinking  instead  of  letting  his  party  do  all 
of  his  thinking,  and  he  should  not  confuse  prejudice  with 
thinking.  While  it  was  too  emphatic,  there  was  much 
truth  in  Carlyle's  fling  at  the  population  of  England,  — 
"Forty  millions,  mostly  fools." 

And  yet  there  is  often  an  advantage  to  the  state  in  this 
mental  inertia.  It  tends  toward  conservatism  and  stability 
in  government.  With  perhaps  a  few  wise  leaders  to  direct 
and  the  most  of  the  people  as  followers,  we  might  perhaps 
progress  more  rapidly  so  far  as  positive  action  goes  than 
if  each  voter  were  to  attempt  to  think  every  issue  out  for 
himself,  and  yet  the  latter  is  the  way  for  the  more  certain 
progress.  In  the  long  run,  if  we  can  train  our  voters  to 
be  thinkers,  they  will  gradually  perceive  the  necessity  of 
harmonious  action,  and  will  learn  intelligently  to  sink  their 
non-essential  differences  and  be  able  to  combine  intelli- 
gently and  positively  upon  essentials. 


36  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

Next  in  importance  in  political  life  to  the  influence  of  men- 
tal and  moral  inertia,  habit,  comes  probably  the  motive  of 
self-interest,  an  influence  likewise  always  counted  upon  by 
the  political  leaders.  They  expect  that  the  voters,  generally 
speaking,  will  vote  with  their  own  financial  or  business  inter- 
ests in  mind.  When  political  speeches  are  planned  by  na- 
tional committees,  they  are  so  arranged  that  there  is  one 
type  for  Pennsylvania,  another  for  Kansas,  another  for 
Massachusetts,  each  adapted  to  suit  those  communities 
by  appeals  to  the  self-interest  of  the  voters.  A  Pennsyl- 
vania voter  will,  generally  speaking,  not  be  influenced 
by  the  thought  of  helping  his  brother  in  Texas  if  this  help 
involves  self-sacrifice.  If  we  see  clearly  what  will  help 
ourselves,  we  are  not  likely  to  think  much  of  the  welfare 
of  the  people  two  thousand  miles  away.  But  again  the 
evil  may  not  be  so  great  as  it  seems  at  first  blush.  If  each 
voter  acts  for  his  own  benefit  as  he  understands  it,  we  are 
likely  to  get  results  which  will  suit  fairly  well  the  interests 
of  the  whole.  Although  the  motive  from  the  moral  point 
of  view  seems  weak,  the  practical  results  in  a  state,  pro- 
vided the  people  are  law-abiding,  may  well  be  good. 

And  this  motive,  too,  goes  far  beyond  the  mere  individ- 
ual voter.  I  remember  a  sentence  or  two  from  a  conversa- 
tion with  a  local  political  leader  at  a  state  convention 
where  one  of  the  candidates  for  governor  was  a  promi- 
nent civil  service  reformer.  In  expressing  his  disapproval 
of  this  candidate,  the  leader  said,  "  Here  I  have  been 
doing  the  dirty  work  of  my  party  for  the  last  twelve 
years,  and  this  man  with  his  civil  service  reform  views, 
if  he  secured  his  election,  would  turn  me  down  in  favor 
of  any  reformer  outside  of  politics  whom  he  thought  some- 
what better  trained  for  the  special  work." 


THE  POLITICAL  MOTIVES  37 

This  man  felt  that  he  had  a  right  to  a  reward  from  his 
party  for  the  dirty  work  that  he  had  done  at  the  polls. 
In  a  somewhat  more  subtle  way  self-interest  often  leads  a 
distinguished  public  man  to  be  more  active  in  the 
support  of  his  party  if  it  is  likely  to  give  him  an  office. 

Another  reason  why  this  motive  of  immediate  self-in- 
terest is  so  effective  in  very  many  cases  is  because  people 
do  not  see  and  understand  clearly  the  questions  at  issue. 
If  a  man's  convictions  are  clear  on  the  issues  of  the  cam- 
paign, and  he  believes  one  party  right  and  the  other  wrong, 
the  chances  are  strong  that  his  vote  cannot  be  bought  at 
any  price;  but  very  few  of  the  masses  understand  clearly 
the  issues,  and  so  those  who  are  the  most  ignorant  or 
those  most  inclined  toward  immediate  gain  or  those  who 
are  weakest  become  much  more  subject  to  a  corrupting  in- 
fluence. One  of  the  best  ways  to  stop  vote  buying  is  to 
educate  the  people,  making  them  see  clearly  the  issues  of 
the  day,  so  they  will  take  an  intelligent  interest. 

Many  voters,  too,  merely  follow  the  dictates  of  a  party 
leader  because  of  their  personal  devotion  toward  him. 
The  followers  of  such  magnetic  leaders  as  Andrew  Jackson, 
Henry  Clay,  James  G.  Blaine,  have  often  been  in- 
fluenced rather  by  a  feeling  of  hero  worship  and  confi- 
dence in  their  leaders'  judgment  than  by  any  intelligent 
plan.  Gladstone  in  England,  Bismarck  in  Germany, 
Cavour  in  Italy,  Gambetti  in  France,  have  been  men  who 
inspired  this  personal  confidence  and  devotion.  I  re- 
member a  talk  many  years  ago  with  a  university  student 
in  Germany.  I  was  asking  his  opinion  on  some  question 
of  public  policy,  when  he  replied,  "Oh,  I  don't  know; 
if  Bismarck  thinks  it  best  it  will  be  done.  I  do  not  need 
to  bother  about  it." 


38  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

Others  look  upon  devotion  to  party  as  substantially 
the  same  thing  as  patriotism,  and  will  stand  by  their  party 
name  regardless  of  the  nature  of  the  issue,  not  merely  from 
ignorance  and  inertia,  as  said  before,  but  also  because  of 
this  spirit  of  devotion  to  an  organization  which  often  be- 
comes a  most  powerful  political  motive. 

Still  others,  perhaps  even  the  great  mass  of  the  people, 
when  the  issue  can  be  made  very  simple,  and  especially  when 
it  becomes  a  moral  issue,  are  influenced  by  patriotism, 
devotion  to  their  country ;  but  unless  the  issue  can  be  made 
simple  and  direct,  and  this  is  rarely  the  case,  it  will  be  seen 
that  different  persons'  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  the 
state  and  of  its  influence  differ  so  widely,  and  must  dif- 
fer so  widely  on  account  of  their  training  and  habits, 
that  there  will  always  be  a  great  diversity  of  interests 
and  views. 

To  the  poor  woman  slaving  her  life  out  attempting 
to  earn  enough  to  clothe  her  children  and  to  get  the 
bread  to  satisfy  their  hunger,  that  state  will  appear  to 
be  the  best  and  that  policy  the  wisest  which  she  thinks 
will,  on  the  whole,  make  it  easier  for  poor  people  to  live. 
To  the  rich,  especially  the  idle  rich  who  live  upon  their 
incomes, — fortunately  for  us  a  small,  and  we  wish  that 
we  could  hope  a  dwindling,  class,  —  the  best  state  is 
naturally  one  that  will  bring  about  security  of  property. 
Having  great  estates,  they  put  the  emphasis  upon  that. 
The  retail  business  man,  merchant,  or  manufacturer  wants 
order  in  the  community  so  that  there  will  be  stability  of 
business.  The  literary  man  is  likely  to  feel  that  the  state  is 
best  which  promotes  education  through  the  arts  and  litera- 
ture, which  supplies  great  public  school  systems  and  art  gal- 
leries for  the  good,  especially  the  intellectual  and  spiritual 


THE  POLITICAL  MOTIVES  39 

good,  of  the  people,  he  likewise  thinking  mainly  of  the  things 
in  which  he  is  chiefly  interested. 

Most  of  us  look  thus  at  political  conditions  and  political 
proposals  mainly  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  own 
interests  or  tastes  or  habits,  being  thus  narrow-minded, 
for  no  one  of  us  ought  to  consider  his  judgment  necessarily 
wiser  than  that  of  another  who  does  a  different  thing  or 
who  has  a  different  thought.  Good  judgment  is  likely 
to  go  with  experience  and  knowledge,  but  at  times  seems 
inherent  in  personal  character.  We  should  try  to  be 
broad-minded  enough  to  realize  that  other  people's 
thoughts  and  desires  and  interests  may  be  as  good  and 
wise  as  our  own,  and  even  if  they  are  not  so  good,  they  may 
be  equally  sincere  and  unselfish.  We  must  strive  to 
seek  that  which  will  be  for  the  interest  of  all. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  motives  of  men  are  so  mani- 
fold, the  results  of  ignorance  so  great,  the  influences 
prompting  or  resulting  from  action  so  complex,  we  are 
likely  to  misjudge  others.  We  cannot  always  select  the 
men  who  are  acting  from  the  best  motives,  because  it  is 
often  unsafe  to  judge  motive  by  action.  The  man  who 
seeks  an  office  because  he  sincerely  feels  that  he  can  thus 
best  serve  the  state  is  likely  to  be  considered  selfish; 
while  he  who  hesitates  to  take  an  active  part  in  political 
life  because  he  questions  his  own  judgment  is  often  accused 
of  heedlessness  and  also  of  selfishness.  The  highest  motive  is 
doubtless  patriotism,  devotion  to  the  country's  interests, 
which  will  lead  us  to  seek  the  best  good  of  all.  We  need 
to  get  as  clear  a  conception  as  possible  of  the  interests 
of  all,  and  that  means  work  as  well  as  devotion. 


Ill 

THE   SUFFRAGE 

At  the  time  that  Cuba  was  about  to  organize  as 
an  independent  state  and  frame  a  constitution,  one  of 
the  leaders  of  the  revolutionary  party  came  to  New  York 
City  to  confer  with  a  number  of  the  leading  political 
thinkers  and  business  men.  It  was  my  good  fortune 
to  be  present  at  one  of  these  conferences,  at  which  there 
came  up  the  question  of  the  suffrage,  and  what  qualifica- 
tions should  be  demanded  of  the  voters  in  the  new  republic. 
There  was  much  discussion  about  the  table,  but  finally  a 
general  consensus  of  opinion  seemed  to  have  been  reached, 
and  they  said  to  this  representative  statesman  from  Cuba, 
practically  this :  Find  out  first,  as  best  you  can,  what  ends 
you  wish  to  attain,  then  draft  your  suffrage  laws  so  as  to 
secure  the  kind  of  men  as  voters  who  will  give  you  what 
you  need.  There  was  no  discussion  whatever  of  the 
natural  right  to  vote,  no  question  raised  as  to  what  was 
just  or  unjust.  The  only  question  considered  was  this: 
What  do  you  want  done  for  the  benefit  of  your  people? 
What  classes  of  the  population  will  do  it? 

It  is  worth  while,  I  think,  before  examining  in  detail 
the  often  controverted  question  of  the  right  to  vote,  to 
go  back  to  one  or  two  of  the  principles  of  politics  that  are 
fundamental,  and  first  the  question  of  a  "  natural  right.'' 
Most  of  the  best  thinkers  on  politics  of  the  present  day, 
I  believe,  will  agree  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  natural 

40 


THE  SUFFRAGE  41 

right.  Each  one  may  do  things,  ought  to  do  things  that 
will  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  community,  but  he  has  not 
the  right  to  demand  anything  from  the  community.  More- 
over, the  criterion  of  what  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  community 
at  large  must  be  settled  by  the  community  itself,  not  by  any 
individual.  That  is  the  practical  solution  of  this  question. 
So  far  as  I  am  aware,  there  is  no  other  solution  in  history. 
The  citizen,  then,  may  and  must  do  what  the  community 
determines  it  is  best  for  him  to  do;  he  must  stand  in  the 
forefront  of  battle  if  so  ordered.  He  must  not  do  what 
the  state  forbids;  he  may  be  deprived  of  liberty  or  life 
if  he  does. 

Again,  we  should  keep  in  mind  what  has  been  em- 
phasized in  the  preceding  chapter,  mental  inertia,  the 
unwillingness  of  people  to  think  and  to  work.  Some 
years  ago  President  Jordan  of  Stanford  University,  in  a 
public  address,  said  that  when  he  was  traveling  once  on 
a  railroad  through  one  of  the  country  districts  of  Indiana, 
the  train  stopped  at  a  little  village  station.  Looking  out 
of  the  window,  he  noticed  six  men  sitting  on  a  fence  bask- 
ing in  the  sunshine,  doing  nothing,  apparently  thinking 
nothing.  The  train  stopped  for  two  or  three  minutes  and 
then  went  on,  leaving  the  men  sitting  on  the  fence.  Two 
or  three  years  later  he  passed  that  way  again.  As  the 
train  stopped  at  the  same  station  he  looked  out.  There 
sat  again  apparently  the  same  six  men  in  a  row  on  the  same 
fence,  doing  nothing,  and,  as  before,  apparently  thinking 
nothing.  "Now,"  he  said,  "that  is  an  illustration  of  what 
is  the  matter  in  a  great  many  cases  with  the  American 
people  and  with  all  peoples.  There  were  those  wide 
stretches  of  fertile  prairies  lying  warm  under  the  summer 
sunshine,  simply  waiting  to  be  tickled  with  the  hoe  to  bring 


42  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

forth  the  richest  harvests ;  here  was  the  demand  for  labor 
of  every  kind,  and  there  sat  these  six  men  apparently 
stuck  to  their  fence  with  the  bird-lime  of  inertia  or  in- 
dolence."    That   is   what   was   the   trouble. 

This  inertia  is  not  confined  at  all  to  the  kind  of  work 
that  Dr.  Jordan  had  in  mind.  It  is  too  much  trouble 
for  most  of  us  to  think  understandingly ;  we  are  much 
more  likely  to  take  the  judgment  of  other  people  without 
testing.  That,  we  have  seen,  is  a  fundamental  principle 
that  runs  through  all  political  discussion.  It  profoundly 
influences  the  question  of  suffrage. 

In  ancient  days  and  practically  through  all  time  up 
to  the  present,  the  chief  classification  of  governments  is 
based  upon  suffrage.  If  in  any  community  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  people  vote,  we  say  that  is  a  democracy, 
even  though  a  king  may  be  named  as  ruler.  If  but  a  small 
number  vote,  we  call  the  government  an  aristocracy  or 
oligarchy.  If  no  one  has  the  right  to  vote,  but  the  govern- 
ment is  carried  on  by  the  will  of  the  ruler  without  any 
regular  method  of  getting  at  the  opinions  of  the  people  or 
of  being  checked  by  the  opinions  of  the  people,  we  call  that 
government  a  tyranny  or  a  despotism  or  an  absolute 
monarchy.  It  is  possible  that  there  is  no  better  general 
classification  of  governments  than  that. 

Too  often,  perhaps,  in  speaking  of  popular  government, 
we  fail  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  number  of  people 
who  vote  and  the  power  that  the  individual  voter  exercises. 
In  the  election  of  the  members  of  the  German  Reichstag, 
for  example,  there  is  no  educational  or  property  quali- 
fication required  for  voting.  We  might  therefore  conclude 
that  the  German  government  was  more  nearly  a  popular 
government  than  that  of  Great  Britain,  where  there  is 


THE  SUFFRAGE  43 

a  property  qualification.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  con- 
sider the  influence  that  the  voters  can  exert,  we  must  con- 
clude that  the  British  form  of  government  is  more  popular 
than  that  of  Germany,  because  in  England  the  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  chosen  by  the  voters,  can  exert 
a  very  much  greater  influence  in  governmental  affairs 
than  can  the  members  of  the  Reichstag  in  Germany.  In 
Great  Britain  the  most  important  bills  are  introduced  in 
the  House  of  Commons  and  the  will  of  that  House  deter- 
mines the  act  of  the  government.  In  Germany  the  most 
important  bills  are  introduced,  not  in  the  Reichstag,  but 
in  the  Bundesrath,  and  experience  has  shown  that  the 
vote  of  the  Reichstag  is  by  no  means  determining.  The 
question  of  the  suffrage  is  not  in  its  real  significance 
confined  merely  to  the  qualifications  for  voting,  but  we 
may  also  properly  consider  the  amount  of  influence  which 
the  voter  can  exert. 

Of  late  years  there  has  been  a  strong  tendency  throughout 
Europe  and  America,  practically  throughout  the  world, 
both  to  extend  the  right  of  suffrage  to  a  greater  number 
of  people  and  to  give  to  the  voters  more  influence  than 
they  earlier  possessed.  When  the  power  has  once  been 
granted,  it  is  difficult  to  take  it  away,  and  leaders 
of  political  parties  seldom  attempt  to  restrict  the  powers 
of  voters. 

We  need  also  to  distinguish  carefully  between  a  free 
state  and  a  state  with  a  popular  government  or  one  with 
a  widely  extended  suffrage.  We  have  perhaps  in  too 
many  cases  used  the  expressions  "free  government"  and 
"popular  government"  as  synonymous  and  have  not 
noted  carefully  the  differences.  In  a  popular  government 
a  very   large   proportion   of    the    people   of    proper   age 


44  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

vote.  That  fact,  however,  does  not  necessarily  imply 
that  the  average  citizen  has  a  greater  degree  of  liberty 
to  do  as  he  pleases  than  he  might  have  in  a  despotism. 
All  depends  upon  the  regulations  which  a  government 
makes  to  direct  or  control  the  actions  of  individual  citizens. 
A  free  state  is  one  that,  relatively  speaking,  interferes  little 
with  the  individual  in  carrying  out  his  wishes.  A  despotism 
might  therefore  from  this  point  of  view  be  really  a  free  state, 
the  despot  choosing  to  interfere  with  the  individual  very 
little.  In  a  popular  government,  inasmuch  as  the  indi- 
vidual takes  an  active  part  in  selecting  the  members  of  that 
government,  we  are  naturally  more  likely  to  find  freedom 
than  in  a  despotism;  but  this  is  not  necessarily  the  case. 
We  may  properly  speak  of  the  tyranny  of  the  majority. 

We  have  already  seen  that  it  is  not  wise  in  political 
discussion  to  speak  of  natural  rights.  Citizens  have  legal 
rights,  but  inasmuch  as  the  state  is  supreme  over  the  in- 
dividual citizen  and  may  call  upon  the  citizen  to  sacrifice 
anything  or  everything,  even  to  his  life,  for  the  good  of 
the  state,  we  may  not  properly  speak  of  a  natural  right  as 
opposed  to  the  power  of  the  state.  The  right  of  voting, 
therefore,  is  to  be  looked  upon  not  at  all  as  a  right,  probably 
not  even  as  a  privilege,  but  rather  as  a  trust,  a  sacred 
trust,  put  by  the  fundamental  law  into  the  hands  of  every 
voter  to  use  for  the  interests  of  the  community  at  large,  — 
that  is,  for  the  state. 

In  order  that  we  may  find  a  sufficient  basis  of  reason  for 
any  restrictions  which  should  be  placed  upon  the  right  to 
vote,  it  will  be  best  to  note  the  character  of  the  work 
which  a  voter  has  to  do  and  then  to  see  what  kind  of  per- 
sonal qualifications  this  work  demands. 

In  some  countries  the  work  of  the  voter  is  primarily 


THE  SUFFRAGE  45 

to  give  his  assent  to  certain  proposals  or  to  dissent  from 
certain  proposals  laid  by  the  officials  before  the  body  of 
voters.  This  was  the  custom  in  ancient  Greece;  this  is 
to-day  the  rule  that  obtains  in  some  of  the  smaller  cantons 
in  Switzerland,  where  they  have  perhaps  the  most  popular 
government  in  the  world  and  where  the  individuals  have 
more  rights  in  government  than  elsewhere.  Every  year  in 
the  great  assemblage  of  all  of  the  voters  of  the  canton,  each 
citizen  may  give  his  vote  in  the  election  of  officers  and 
especially  in  the  making  of  laws.  The  executive  body 
that  has  been  in  existence  for  a  year,  after  consultation 
with  various  citizens  or  a  group  of  citizens,  themselves 
may  present  certain  proposals  to  the  mass  of  the  voters. 
A  brief  discussion  is  held;  then  the  vote  is  taken  of  this 
mass  of  voting  citizens,  who  are  expected  to  vote  at  once 
aye  or  nay  on  the  proposal.  This  voting  upon  laws  is 
the  main  duty  of  the  voters  in  some  countries.  In 
the  United  States  this  duty  is  exceptional.  It  is 
usually  found  in  the  case  of  amendments  to  the  con- 
stitution and  sometimes,  under  special  regulations,  in  the 
settlement  of  local  questions  regarding  bonding  of  cities, 
extraordinary  expenditures  of  money,  or  some  special 
question  that  has  been  referred  to  the  people  by  the  state 
legislature  or  city  council. 

By  far  the  most  important  work,  however,  of  voters  in 
most  countries,  especially  in  our  own,  is  the  selection  of 
representatives  to  act  for  them.  The  importance  of  this 
work  varies  with  the  number  of  officials  and  their  duties. 
In  some  countries,  where  only  a  few  officials  are  elected, 
the  others  being  appointed,  this  particular  duty  is  much 
simpler  than  in  others  where  a  very  large  proportion  of 
the  officials  are  elective. 


46  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

As  a  practical  matter,  too,  the  average  voter  under 
ordinary  circumstances  in  the  United  States  simply  ex- 
presses his  choice  between  two  or  more  rival  candidates 
that  have  been  selected  for  him  by  other  people,  usually 
the  party  leaders.  This  choice  is  regularly  made  by 
caucuses  or  conventions  to  which  the  voter  has  the  right 
to  go  in  person  or  to  send  a  delegate  to  represent  him, 
and  where  his  opinion  regarding  the  various  candidates 
may  have  full  weight.  Owing,  however,  to  the  natural 
mental  and  moral  inertia  of  which  we  have  spoken  before, 
and  the  kind  of  pressure  brought  to  bear  on  the 
average  voter,  the  candidates  are  usually  picked  out  by 
a  few  leaders,  the  great  mass  of  the  people  being  ex- 
pected simply  to  choose  between  two  or  three  candidates. 
The  result  of  this  system  has  been  that  many  political 
reformers  have  felt  it  their  duty  to  improve  the  conditions 
under  which  our  nominations  should  be  made.  Under 
a  real  democracy,  in  the  everyday  sense  of  that  word,  some 
think  that  there  will  be  a  system  of  direct  nominations  to 
office  under  which  the  individual  voter  will  have  as  much 
to  say  in  the  selection  of  the  candidates  of  his  party  as  he 
will  afterwards  have  to  say  in  their  election. 

In  some  countries,  owing  to  the  form  of  party  organiza- 
tion, the  voter  finds  his  choice  determined  very  largely 
by  the  spirit  of  hero  worship  that  obtains  among  the  masses. 
In  modern  Greece,  for  example,  the  political  parties, 
generally  speaking,  take  the  name  of  their  leaders;  some 
years  ago  the  leading  parties  being  the  Trikoupists,  the 
Delyannists,  the  Karapanists,  and  similar  parties.  The 
mass  of  voters  care,  relatively  speaking,  little  about  the 
principles  of  the  parties,  although  these  leaders,  of  course, 
were    supposed    to    represent    certain    principles.     They 


THE  SUFFRAGE  47 

simply  followed  the  suggestion  of  the  great  leader  regard- 
ing the  selection  of  candidates. 

In  some  few  states,  primarily  in  Switzerland,  the  voter 
not  merely  aids  in  the  selection  of  his  representative  or 
votes  upon  laws  presented  to  him,  but  through  the  initiative 
formally  proposes  laws  which  must  then  be  taken  up  by 
the  legislature,  formulated,  and  then  submitted  to  the 
people.  In  our  own  country  any  influential  individual 
will  have  little  difficulty  in  getting  a  proposal  for  a 
law  before  the  legislature,  although  formally  all  bills  are 
presented  only  by  members. 

With  the  understanding,  then,  that  the  chief  work  of  a 
voter  in  a  country  like  ours  is  to  select  representatives,  and 
a  secondary  work  which  comes  from  time  to  time  is  to 
pass  upon  laws,  especially  constitutional  amendments,  we 
may  note  the  qualifications  that  should  be  required  of 
every  voter  in  order  that  our  government  may  be  wisely 
carried  on. 

There  are,  of  course,  certain  qualifications  that  every 
voter  must  have  as  a  matter  of  convenience.  For  example, 
some  age  must  be  fixed  in  the  law.  This  is  largely  an 
arbitrary  matter.  In  many  cases  boys  of  sixteen  may 
well  know  more  about  what  is  good  for  the  state  'than 
many  men  of  thirty-five  or  sixty.  But  the  line  must  be 
drawn  somewhere,  and  in  most  countries  the  age  that  is 
supposed  to  be  that  of  a  sufficient  degree  of  maturity  for 
holding  and  administering  property  independently  and 
therefore  for  assuming  the  other  rights  and  duties  of  man- 
hood or  womanhood  has  been  fixed  at  twenty-one  years. 
In  some  countries  the  age  has  been  put  somewhat  higher, 
as  in  Germany,  twenty-five  years,  but  twenty-one  seems 
to  be  the  most  usual. 


48  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

In  order  that  there  may  be  the  proper  identification  of 
the  voter  and  that  abuses  may  less  easily  arise,  there  is 
usually  some  requirement  regarding  residence  in  the  voting 
district,  —  a  year,  six  months,  three  months,  ten  days, 
depending  upon  the  circumstances  and  the  size  of  the  con- 
stituency. Where  fraud  is  likely,  the  registration  laws  are 
usually  strict,  —  otherwise,  little  care  need  be  taken.  The 
other  qualifications  often  insisted  upon,  such  as  a  property 
qualification,  an  educational  qualification,  a  sex  qualifica- 
tion, sometimes  a  race  qualification,  a  clean  record  as  re- 
gards crime,  etc.,  are  intended  to  select  voters  who  will  be 
able  to  perform  suitably  the  work  required  of  them.  These 
various  qualifications  can  perhaps  be  best  tested  by  noting 
the  qualifications  needed  to  perform  the  kinds  of  work 
already  considered.  If  the  functions  of  the  voter  were 
extended  so  that  he  had  more  to  do  than  in  this  country, 
and  work  of  a  higher  type,  his  qualifications  should,  of 
course,  be  placed  higher  than  those  which  might  be  best 
in  our  country  to-day. 

Since  our  voters  have  merely  primarily  to  select  officials, 
if  we  are  to  have  any  educational  qualification  at  all  for 
the  suffrage,  it  would  clearly  be  much  less  than  if  the  work 
of  the  voter  were  to  pass  upon  all  bills  before  they 
were  enacted  into  laws.  If  every  important  law,  like, 
let  us  say,  a  reform  tariff  act  or  an  amendment  to  our 
federal  banking  law  or  the  reorganization  of  a  monetary 
system,  were  to  come  before  the  people  for  their  action, 
a  much  higher  grade  of  intelligence  and  training  would 
be  required  than  if  the  voters  had  simply  to  determine 
whether  they  should  have  A  represent  them  instead  of  B. 
How  many  people  are  there  in  our  community  to-day 
that  have  so  thoroughly  studied  the  tariff  question  or  the 


THE  SUFFRAGE  49 

monetary  situation  that  they  are  really  competent  to  ex- 
press any  opinion  upon  the  proposals  that  will  be  brought 
forward  before  Congress?  These  questions  are  extremely 
complicated.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  average 
voter  is  competent  to  decide  upon  the  details  of  such  legis- 
lative matters.  If  he  must  cast  his  vote  on  such  a  question, 
he  will  need  to  go  to  some  friend  who  is  thoroughly  posted, 
get  his  judgment,  and  act  upon  it,  or  practically  guess  at 
the  right  conclusion;  or,  if  party  organization  is  strict, 
the  average  voter  will  follow  his  party  leaders  without 
making  any  independent  judgment  for  himself.  There 
can,  of  course,  be  no  test  made  of  the  fitness  of  voters  to 
settle  complicated  questions.  Any  educational  qualifica- 
tion that  can  be  practically  applied  must  be  simple.  Even 
though  candidates  are  supposed  to  represent  certain  party 
policies  in  the  main  so  that  the  voters  might  be  expected 
to  make  up  their  minds  regarding  some  broad  questions 
of  general  policy,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  they  can  be 
expected  to  understand  thoroughly  the  details  of  such 
measures. 

In  local  elections  it  is  comparatively  seldom  the  case 
that  party  policies,  which  are  national  in  their  scope, 
should  affect  the  voter's  opinion  at  all.  In  the  case  of  a 
congressional  election,  where  the  party  candidate  is  sup- 
posed to  stand  for  some  governmental  policy,  a  much 
greater  degree  of  knowledge  would  be  required  of  the  voter 
to  select  his  candidate  intelligently  than  in  the  case  of  a 
local  election  where  the  questions  at  issue  are  or  may  be 
within  the  business  experience  and  acquaintance  of  prac- 
tically any  voter.  We  may  assume,  however,  that  under 
all  circumstances  the  voter  will  need  a  certain  modicum 
of  knowledge  and  the  ability  readily  to  secure  information. 


50  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

In  very  many  cases  this  will  imply  a  knowledge  of  reading 
and  writing,  although  all  would  recognize  the  fact  that  there 
are  very  many  exceptional  individuals  who,  without  being 
able  to  read  or  write,  are  still  able,  and  with  great  facility, 
to  get  information  which  will  enable  them  to  cast  an  intelli- 
gent ballot.  In  the  older  states  and  in  larger  cities,  where 
the  purely  local  issues  are  likely  to  be  more  prominent  and 
where  educational  facilities  are  much  more  generally 
available  than  in  many  of  the  newer  states,  we  may  expect 
perhaps  some  kind  of  an  educational  qualification,  such 
as  the  ability  to  read  and  write ;  whereas  in  some  of  the 
newer  states,  where  educational  facilities  are  rare,  the 
questions  less  complicated,  and  personal  knowledge  of 
the  individuals  of  the  community  much  greater,  such  a 
qualification  would  not  be  needed  or  suitable. 

Aside  from  the  matter  of  knowledge,  there  would  be 
general  agreement  that  every  voter  should  know  and  feel 
the  fundamental  requisites  of  good  government,  such  as 
order  in  the  community,  the  spirit  of  obedience  to  law,  and, 
in  the  case  of  a  democratic  government,  the  desire  that  the 
people  should  have  a  considerable  degree  of  personal 
liberty.  These  matters  are  of  much  greater  consequence 
than  a  knowledge  of  the  specific  issues  of  the  day  con- 
cerning which  most  citizens  can  readily  get  proper  informa- 
tion if  they  wish. 

Every  voter  should,  of  course,  have  a  sufficient  degree 
of  patriotism  and  unselfish  desire  to  further  the  interests 
of  the  people  as  a  whole,  even  at  his  own  expense  if  need  be, 
and  a  considerable  degree  of  interest  in  public  affairs. 
The  interest  in  public  affairs  may  perhaps  be  generally 
counted  upon  in  democratic  governments,  provided  the 
citizens  understand  reasonably  well  the  questions  at  issue. 


THE  SUFFRAGE  51 

A  large  proportion  of  our  venal  vote  doubtless  conies 
through  lack  of  interest  brought  about  by  ignorance. 
Wherever  the  issue  is  clearly  drawn,  especially  along  moral 
lines,  the  proportion  of  the  total  vote  that  is  purchasable 
will  be  very  greatly  lessened.  The  only  test  of  interest 
that  is  practicable  is  the  habit  of  attending  to  one's  civic 
duties.  If  a  man  fails  to  vote  for  several  years  with  no 
sufficient  excuse,  he  might  be  disfranchised. 

A  modicum  of  good  judgment  is  likewise,  of  course, 
desirable ;  but  there  is  perhaps  no  possible  means  of  secur- 
ing a  test  of  this  quality  beyond  that  which  might  come 
from  a  simple  educational  qualification  or  from  a  degree 
of  independence  shown  by  the  power  of  self-support. 
Paupers  may  properly  be  deprived  of  the  right  to  vote 
on  the  ground  that  they  have  not  good  judgment  or  else 
that  they  lack  in  independence. 

There  are  other  personal  qualifications  which  may  be 
of  even  greater  consequence.  Emerson  in  one  of  his 
essays  says  something  to  this  effect,  —  that  the  most 
precious  thing  in  the  world  is  an  independent  thinking 
soul,  —  and  then  he  goes  on  to  comment  upon  the  humilia- 
tion that  it  is  for  an  individual  to  be  simply  counted  by 
the  head  as  sheep,  or  to  have  his  political  action  predicted 
geographically,  as  when  politicians  say,  The  voters  of 
Kansas  will  vote  in  favor  of  such  a  measure;  New 
York  City  will  certainly  go  Democratic,  while  the  country 
districts  will  go  Republican,  etc.  Our  political  actions 
are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  predicted  geographically,  be- 
cause the  party  leaders  know  that  the  very  large  ma- 
jority of  the  voters  in  all  these  states  do  not  have 
independent  thinking  souls.  This  characteristic  of  in- 
dependence in  the   voters  is  of  very   great  importance, 


52  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

provided  our  government  is  to  be  considered  at  all  a 
government  of  the  people. 

If  each  voter  is  to  have  a  certain  degree  of  personal  in- 
dependence, a  personality  of  his  own,  certainly  slaves  must 
be  excluded  to  begin  with,  because  they  have  no  right  of 
their  own,  no  personality;  slaves  ought  not  to  vote. 

In  England,  for  centuries,  even  in  fact  until  late  years, 
all  wage-earners  were  excluded  from  voting  on  exactly 
that  ground.  The  people  in  England  said,  Who  handles 
my  purse  owns  me,  and  inasmuch  as  the  wage-earners 
seemed  to  be  dependent  upon  their  employers,  they  were 
excluded  from  voting.  Within  a  few  decades  in  most 
countries,  especially  in  those  countries  where  the  secret 
ballot  is  found,  the  government  has  felt  that  it  can  protect 
the  wage-earners  against  oppression,  and  the  wage-earners 
themselves,  through  their  organizations  and  through  their 
greater  degree  of  intelligence,  have  come  to  feel  that  they 
need  not  be  dependent  upon  their  employers,  but  may 
think  and  vote  as  they  will.  Even  in  our  own  country, 
as  we  know,  there  are  many  charges  that  the  employer 
coerces  his  workingmen.  When  such  cases  are  directly 
investigated,  it  is  usually  found  that  although  the  employ- 
ers may  express  their  opinions  regarding  the  effect  of 
an  election  and  may  even  express  an  opinion  that  the 
election  of  a  candidate  might  result  so  disastrously  that 
the  workshops  would  need  to  be  closed,  this  is  done  with- 
out any  threat,  direct  or  implied.  Employers  usually 
under  our  laws,  although  there  are  exceptions,  do 
not  take  the  means  necessary  to  enable  them  to 
exercise  coercion,  although  they  may  wish  to  exercise 
some   influence. 

In  certain  countries  government  officials  are  excluded 


THE  SUFFRAGE  53 

from  voting  on  the  ground  that  they  have  not  a  sufficient 
degree  of  independence.  It  is  well  known  that  at  the  time 
of  one  important  election  in  Germany,  when  Prince  Bis- 
marck was  anxious  to  secure  as  large  a  representation  as 
possible  for  the  government  candidates,  a  circular  letter 
was  issued  to  the  effect  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  Chan- 
cellor one  of  the  duties  of  government  officials  was  to  stand 
by  the  government  in  elections.  This  was  practically  an 
order  from  the  Chancellor,  Prince  Bismarck,  to  all  govern- 
ment officials  to  vote  for  the  candidates  favored  by  the 
government.  Any  such  action  would  not  be  tolerated  here. 
Any  high  government  official  who  attempted  to  exercise 
such  an  influence  would,  under  our  later  Presidents,  be 
himself  dropped  from  his  position.  Until  late  years,  how- 
ever, there  was  much  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  some 
of  our  government  officials  by  those  higher  in  power,  and 
if  this  pressure  could  not  have  been  removed  so  that  the 
under  official  might  keep  his  independent  personality,  it 
would  have  been  better  to  deprive  our  officials  of  the  right 
to  vote. 

The  question  of  woman  suffrage  is  perhaps  the  one  in 
this  connection  most  debated  in  our  country  to-day,  and 
this  may  properly  be  tested  in  the  consideration  of  these 
personal  qualities.  Few  people  would  deny  that  as  regards 
their  knowledge  or  intelligence  the  women  in  the  United 
States  are  fully  the  equal  of  the  men.  Their  knowledge 
may  not  lie  primarily  along  political  lines,  because  their 
interest  has  been  elsewhere;  but  certainly,  if  one  may 
judge  from  the  experiences  of  coeducational  institutions  and 
of  many,  if  not  most,  social  organizations,  where  com- 
mittees of  both  sexes  work  together,  the  degree  of  intelli- 
gence as  well  as  of  specialized  knowledge  does  not  show 


54  THE   PRINCIPLES   OF   POLITICS 

sufficient  inferiority  of  either  sex  to  warrant  any  distinction 
being  made  on  this  ground.  The  same  statement  may 
be  made  regarding  the  qualities  of  moral  character,  of 
unselfish  altruism,  of  devotion  to  the  public  weal. 

The  argument  upon  which  the  anti-suffragists  have  most 
generally  relied,  so  far  as  personal  qualifications  are  con- 
cerned, is  that  women  lack  independence  or  good  judgment. 
Women,  they  assert,  are  swayed  by  feeling  rather  than  by 
judgment;  they  have  not  an  independent  personality  suf- 
ficient to  justify  granting  them  the  suffrage.  The  ques- 
tion should  be  fairly  considered.  In  many  countries, 
especially  in  the  early  stages  of  society,  the  family  stands 
as  a  unit,  the  patriarch  directing  its  affairs.  Much  might 
be  said  in  favor  of  the  policy  of  giving  to  every  family 
one  vote,  making  the  family  and  not  the  individual  the 
unit.  Under  those  circumstances  it  would  make  practi- 
cally no  difference  what  member  of  the  family  cast  the 
vote.  It  would  be  the  leader  in  the  family  who  would 
determine  its  nature,  whether  it  were  cast  by  the  father 
or  the  mother.  Even  at  the  present  time  there  are  doubt- 
less many  cases  where  the  women  chiefly  determine  how 
the  one  vote  which  the  family  possesses  shall  be  cast. 
The  women  vote  thus  by  proxy  through  their  husbands. 
In  many  countries  in  Europe  and  under  certain  circum- 
stances in  certain  states  in  the  Union,  women  have  the 
right  to  vote  if  they  are  independent  property  holders; 
and  if  the  family  is  made  the  political  unit,  it  would 
seem  that  independent  single  personalities,  whether  men 
or  women,  should  be  given  the  same  right.  In  Austria, 
under  certain  conditions,  in  some  places  in  Germany,  and 
in  some  other  countries  in  Europe,  women  have  a  right 
to   vote;    but  since  it  is   not   thought  best  for   women 


THE  SUFFRAGE  55 

to  appear  at  the  polls,  they  are  compelled  to  vote 
by  proxy. 

If  we  come  back  now  to  the  fundamental  question  asked 
before,  we  must  ask  for  our  country  and  our  day  and 
generation,  Has  a  woman  a  personality  so  independent 
that  she  will  make  up  her  own  mind  ?  Let  us  go  back  to 
some  of  our  earlier  fundamental  principles.  Most  of  us 
have  very  little  independent  personality.  We  are  too 
much  inclined  to  drift.  There  can  be  no  question  at  all 
that  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  women  in  any  com- 
munity in  the  United  States  have  much  more  independent 
personalities  than  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  men  who  do  vote.  The  question  then  would  be,  Is  the 
proportion  of  women  who  have  this  independent  personality 
so  much  less  than  the  proportion  of  men  with  independence 
of  judgment  and  action  that  it  warrants  us  in  excluding 
the  women  as  a  class? 

That  is  the  principle  by  which  to  decide.  Considering 
our  civilization  of  to-day  and  our  ordinary  customs,  a  man 
is  expected  probably  to  make  up  his  mind  independently 
on  these  questions  of  the  day  rather  more  often  than  are 
women;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  every  observing  man 
would  doubtless  say  that  the  proportion  of  women  who 
on  most  matters  think  for  themselves  independently, 
without  any  reference  to  their  husbands  or  fathers  or 
brothers  or  any  other  man,  is  large  enough  so  that  if  that 
were  the  only  vital  matter,  we  should  not  be  justified  in 
excluding  them  from  voting. 

From  the  principles  that  have  already  been  laid  down 
it  will  be  seen  that  in  all  probability  the  suffrage  should 
not  be  the  same  in  all  countries  or  in  all  states,  because 
the  demands  that  will  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  voters 


56  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

will  differ,  and  the  voters  themselves  will  differ  in  type. 
With  the  fundamental  essentials  of  good  government, 
orderly  government,  peaceful  government,  civic  progress, 
in  mind,  and  with  the  thought  that  the  voter  should  have 
an  abiding  interest  in  public  affairs,  we  may  take  up  the 
question  again.  So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  gather, 
experience  shows  that  woman  suffrage  in  most  of  our 
western  states  has  been  a  success.  So  far  as  my  informa- 
tion goes,  and  I  have  taken  some  pains  to  get  accurate 
information  on  this  subject  in  different  states  at  different 
times,  the  voting  of  women  has  been  conducted  in  an  or- 
derly way.  They  have  generally  shown  an  equal  degree 
of  intelligence  and  altruism  and  they  have  exercised  in- 
dependent judgment.  For  example,  in  the  state  of  Colo- 
rado, some  years  since,  a  man  and  his  wife  were  found 
opposing  candidates  for  members  of  the  legislature,  and 
the  wife  won.  Both  these  surely  had  independent  per- 
sonalities and  each  was  willing  to  protect  his  rights.  So 
far  as  I  have  ever  heard,  peace  remained  in  that  family 
after  election  as  before. 

Moreover,  in  those  states,  so  far  as  can  be  learned, 
women  have  not  been  pushing  themselves  forward  as 
candidates  for  office  to  any  noteworthy  extent.  There 
has  been  no  marked  change  in  the  social  order  and  in 
social  conditions  such  as  many  people  expected.  If  we 
may  judge  from  the  fact  that  the  women  and  the  men 
from  childhood  have  been  brought  up  under  the  influence 
of  the  same  social  traditions,  we  may  expect,  from  the 
general  principle  of  mental  inertia  already  emphasized, 
that  they  will  think  much  alike  on  nearly  all  public  ques- 
tions. If  we  grant  the  women  the  right  to  vote,  provided 
that  they  exercise  this  right  to  any  noteworthy  degree, 


THE  SUFFRAGE  57 

we  should  expect  that  on  most  questions  of  the  day,  while 
more  votes  would  be  cast,  the  division  of  votes  would  be 
in  much  the  same  proportion  as  now. 

But  will  women  show  much  interest  in  public  questions 
and  actually  cast  their  votes?  That,  of  course,  will  de- 
pend upon  the  social  conditions  of  the  states  in  question. 
In  most  of  our  western  states  where  the  right  to  vote  has 
been  granted,  as  Colorado  and  Utah,  women  of  all  classes 
have  voted  in  sufficient  numbers  probably  to  justify  the 
law.  In  the  older  states,  such  as  Massachusetts,  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  apparently  only  a  minority,  and  in 
many  instances  only  a  small  minority  of  the  women  wish 
the  right  to  vote.  Under  those  circumstances,  the  proba- 
bilities are  that  they  would  not  have  the  interest  in  public 
questions  that  would  be  desirable.  Under  those  con- 
ditions, probably  more  harm  than  good  would  be  done 
by  granting  them  the  suffrage.  The  suffragists  should 
first  change  public  sentiment,  then  secure  the  right,  be- 
cause in  this  matter,  as  in  others,  laws  that  are  not  lived 
up  to  are  likely  to  be  detrimental ;  and  in  the  making  of 
laws,  as  well  as  in  their  enforcement,  a  great  deal  depends 
and  should  depend  upon  public  sentiment. 

To  sum  up  this  question,  then,  as  regards  woman  suf- 
frage,— and  we  shall  see  that  the  same  principles  will  apply 
to  negro  suffrage  and  to  other  special  questions  of  that 
kind,  —  we  may  say  that  the  suffrage  in  the  first  place  is  not 
to  be  looked  upon  as  a  right.  The  question  must  be  settled 
for  each  community  on  the  ground  of  the  good  of  that 
community.  In  many  communities  women  ought  not  to 
have  the  right  to  vote,  because  they  have  been  kept 
down  so  long  that  they  have  not  the  requisite  degree  of 
intelligent  knowledge  and  independence.    In  the  United 


58  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

States  their  intelligence  and  range  of  information  is, 
generally  speaking,  probably  equal  to  that  of  the  men. 
In  such  communities  they  should  not  be  excluded  on  the 
ground  of  lack  of  knowledge  or  lack  of  altruism  or  lack  of 
honesty  or  lack  of  personal  independence.  If  they  are 
excluded  at  all,  it  should  be  on  the  ground  that  they,  as 
yet,  do  not  wish  the  right,  and  not  wishing  it,  they  would 
probably  neglect  their  duties.  In  consequence,  too, 
so  great  social  commotion  might  come  from  the  change 
that  it  would  be  unwise  to  grant  it  until  the  public 
sentiment  has  been  changed. 

But  it  may  well  be  asked  why  not  exclude  those  who 
do  not  show  the  proper  amount  of  interest  and  admit  to 
the  right  of  suffrage  those  who  possess  all  the  qualifica- 
tions named  ?  The  question  is  fair,  and  presumably  that 
would  be  the  best  solution  of  the  question,  unless,  owing 
to  social  conditions,  the  passage  of  such  a  law  would  bring 
so  much  pressure  socially  and  politically  to  bear  upon  other 
women  who  did  not  wish  the  right  to  vote  that  their  in- 
dependence and  comfort  would  be  sacrificed  to  so  great 
a  degree  that  more  harm  would  be  done  them  and  the 
state  than  good  would  be  done  their  voting  sisters  and 
the  state  through  the  benefit  coming  from  their  vote.  The 
welfare  of  the  whole  is  to  be  considered. 

The  question  of  negro  suffrage  or  of  suffrage  of  special 
races  under  certain  circumstances  needs  to  be  answered 
in  much  the  same  way.  Where  the  social  conditions  are 
such  that  the  peace  of  the  community  and  orderly  govern- 
ment will  not  be  sacrificed  by  admitting  individuals  under 
certain  regulations,  the  best  way  of  settling  a  question 
such  as  that  of  negro  suffrage  is  to  establish  educational 
qualifications,    property    qualifications,    qualifications    of 


THE  SUFFRAGE  59 

character,  of  independence  of  judgment  in  whatever  way 
these  may  locally  be  best  applied  so  as  to  secure  the  right 
kind  of  a  vote,  and  then  let  the  voters  be  selected  regard- 
less of  color  or  race,  solely  on  the  ground  of  personal  quali- 
fications. But  in  other  states  and  under  other  conditions 
such  action  would  be  extremely  unwise,  because  it  is  not 
a  practical  matter  to  try  such  a  law  under  all  conditions. 
In  considering  the  effect  of  any  law  that  would  give  other 
races  the  right  to  vote,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  it 
is  better  often  to  have  no  law  than  to  have  one  that  can- 
not be  observed.  We  should  be  honest  with  ourselves. 
If  you  had  been  a  citizen  in  a  state  where  a  large  ma- 
jority of  the  inhabitants  were  negroes  of  the  type  of  those 
in  many  of  the  southern  states  shortly  after  the  close  of 
the  Civil  War,  would  you  have  thought  it  advisable  or 
possible  to  put  your  schools,  your  civil  order,  your  whole 
civilization  into  the  hands  of  negroes  dominated,  perhaps, 
by  a  few  unscrupulous  demagogues  ?  There  is  no  question 
that  you  would  have  opposed  by  force,  if  necessary,  any 
such  measure,  as  did  the  people  of  the  South.  With  the  ex- 
perience of  the  people  there,  as  with  the  experience  of  other 
peoples  in  other  countries,  as  in  the  Transvaal,  as  in  South 
Africa,  it  might  very  well  be  that  the  granting  of  the  right 
to  vote  to  even  a  few  who  personally  were  well  qualified 
would,  on  account  of  the  social  conditions,  do  far  more 
harm  than  any  good  that  could  for  the  time  being  possibly 
be  realized.  Under  those  circumstances,  public  sentiment 
should  be  gradually  changed  until  the  suffrage  can  be 
placed  on  the  basis  of  individual  personal  qualifications. 
In  the  South  this  is  gradually  coming  to  be  the  condition. 
As  the  negroes  are  progressing  and  meeting  these  quali- 
fications, they  are  more  and  more  as  a  practical  matter 


60  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

securing  the  suffrage.     Later  on,  doubtless,  the  matter  can 
be  put  fairly  on  such  a  basis  in  most  such  states. 

So  must  we  answer  the  question  regarding  the  granting 
of  the  suffrage  to  other  races,  even  of  equal  intelligence 
or  equal  moral  character  to  the  members  of  the  dominat- 
ing race.  So  long  as  the  feeling  is  strong  against  any  class 
or  race  on  the  ground  that,  if  they  could  vote,  they  would 
make  changes  in  the  social  conditions  and  that  the  civiliza- 
tion of  the  country  would  be  materially  changed  against 
the  will  of  the  dominating  classes,  it  would  be  better,  rather 
than  precipitate  a  social  revolution,  gradually  to  train 
public  opinion  until  a  majority  stand  ready  to  place  the 
suffrage  on  the  ground  of  personal  qualifications  of  the 
nature  of  those  laid  down  in  this  chapter,  and  then  to  admit 
regardless  of  sex  or  color  or  race.  In  the  making  of  any 
fundamental  law  which  is  to  affect  civilization  so  much 
as  will  any  material  modification  of  the  principles  of  the 
suffrage,  we  must  apply  general  principles  such  as  those 
laid  down  in  this  chapter  conservatively  and  adopt  only 
those  measures  that  are  adapted  to  the  stage  of  civiliza- 
tion of  the  state  in  which  we  live. 


IV 

POLITICAL   PARTIES 

In  his  study  of  politics  in  the  United  States,  President 
Woodrow  Wilson  said  last  year  in  his  inimitable  way  that 
our  political  parties  are  of  the  very  greatest  importance 
as  a  coordinating  force  in  our  government.  I  The  intention 
of  our  forefathers  was  to  give  us  a  government  of  checks 
and  balances,  with  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  de- 
partments, distinct  and  separate  ;  but,  in  order  that  our 
government  may  be  efficient,  the  system  of  checks  and 
balances  which  weakens  it  must  be  overcome  by  some 
coordinating  force.  In  our  country  that  force  is  our 
political  parties. 

If  we  are  to  see  in  a  practical  way  their  nature  and  to 
recognize  our  own  relationship  to  those  parties,  we  must 
approach  the  question  from  a  viewpoint  somewhat  different 
from  that  of  the  critical  political  philosopher.  We  must 
see  how  parties  are  made  up,  and  we  must  consider 
what  attitude  we  ought  to  take  with  reference  to  party 
allegiance. 

Owing  to  the  differences  in  our  natures  and  training,  it 
is  natural  that  the  individuals  in  a  community  have  opin- 
ions which  differ  on  almost  any  question  of  public  policy. 
It  is  therefore  normal  that  political  parties  should  arise, 
inasmuch  as  a  political  party  is  merely  a  group  of  citizens 
who  think,  or  are  supposed  to  think  in  the  same  way  on 
certain  prominent  political  questions  of  the  day.     Political 

61 


62  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

parties  arise  in  the  same  natural  way  that  religious  sects 
arise.  Many  people  are  inclined  to  question  whether 
it  is  desirable  to  have  so  many  sects  in  religion,  and 
whether  it  would  not  be  wiser  to  abolish  sectarianism  and 
establish  one  church  on  a  few  fundamental  principles. 
But  we  should  recognize  that  such  an  attempt  in  the 
present  generation,  at  any  rate,  presumably  for  a  long  time 
to  come,  would  fail.  People  will  think  differently  on  vari- 
ous phases  of  religious  questions  owing  to  their  different 
temperaments,  to  their  training  as  children,  to  the  sur- 
roundings of  their  daily  lives.  If  we  are  going  to  have 
religious  progress  at  all,  it  is  presumably  desirable  that 
we  have  these  various  denominations  in  order  that  each 
may  find  the  religious  fellowship  that  suits  his  needs. 

Likewise,  in  the  natural  order,  out  of  the  differences  of 
human  nature,  have  arisen  our  political  parties.  Many 
years  ago,  Charles  Sumner  said:  "Party  in  its  truest 
state  is  the  natural  expression  of  opinion  on  particular 
public  questions."  This  expression  will  assume,  of  course, 
different  forms ;  parties  are  therefore  a  necessity  in  every 
democracy. 

Moreover,  if  a  political  party  is  to  put  its  opinions  into 
effect,  it  must  have,  of  course,  a  thoroughly  well-equipped 
organization  in  order  that  the  thoughts  of  the  party  may 
be  crystallized,  put  into  laws,  and  properly  administered.. 
We  therefore  cannot  have  anything  like  effective  political 
parties  unless  we  have  party  machines.  A  party  machine, 
means  simply  the  organization  through  which  the  different 
voters  of  the  party  have  their  opinions  crystallized  into 
definite  form  and  through  which  the  means  are  employed 
to  bring  the  voters  together  effectively,  if  not  intelligently, 
in  order  to  secure  power  for  the  party. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  63 

It  should  be  clearly  recognized  that  the  first  duty  of 
every  political  party  is,  and  ought  to  be,  to  get  control  of 
the  offices.  We  find  fault,  properly  enough,  in  a  great 
many  cases  with  the  methods  employed  by  our  party  or- 
ganizations to  secure  the  offices,  and  we  talk  as  if  there 
were  something  wrong  in  getting  them.  That  is  not  at 
all  the  case.  If  we  join  a  political  party,  we  do  so  because 
we  believe  that  our  views  with  reference  to  the  policies  of 
the  day  ought  to  be  put  into  effect;  we  think  those  views 
can  be  put  into  effect  only  through  joining  with  others  of 
like  views  in  party  organization,  and  then  in  doing  what 
we  can  to  put  that  party  into  power,  that  is,  to  get  the 
offices.  Our  party  managers,  therefore,  are  doing  nothing 
wrong  in  attempting  in  every  honest  and  honorable  way 
to  secure  the  offices  for  men  who  will  carry  their  policies 
into  effect. 

When  I  limit  the  efforts  of  the  party  managers  to  those 
that  are  honest  and  honorable,  I  mean  this:  However 
important  the  ordinary  political  tenets  of  a  party  may  be, 
there  is  nothing  so  fundamental  to  the  success  of  demo- 
cratic government  as  a  sense  of  order,  of  honor,  and  of 
justice,  in  the  community.  However  important,  therefore, 
the  issue  may  be  that  arises  between  the  political  parties, 
whether  it  be  a  question  of  economics  or  of  political  method, 
we  may  be  sure  that  important  as  that  question  is,  it  can 
never  justify  corruption  of  the  voters  to  put  it  into  effect. 
Corruption  of  the  voters  will  do  more  harm  than  the 
success  of  the  opposite  party,  however  weak  and  bad  its 
opinions  may  be.  That  is  something  that  is  often  over- 
looked. 

Though  our  politicians  in  some  cases  go  beyond  what 
is  best  for  the  state  in  their  attempt  to  win,  it  is  yet 


64  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

worth  while  to  bear  in  mind  that  great  care  is  taken  and 
very  great  intelligence  is  shown  in  the  mere  organization 
of   our   party   machines.    Many   will   recall   the   political 
campaign  of  1888,  in  which  political  feeling  was  running 
very  high.    The  states  of  New  York  and  Indiana  were 
doubtful,  and  it  was  thought  extremely  desirable  by  the 
party  managers  on  both  sides  that  those  states  should  be 
carried.     It  was  reported  that  a  telegram  was  sent  from 
the  Republican  headquarters  to  Indiana,  instructing  the 
political  leaders  there  to  divide  the  voters  of  that  state  into 
"blocks  of  five,"  and  on  election  day  to  put  each  block 
into  the  hands  of  a  trusty  man.     Somewhat  later  I  asked 
one  of  the  local  Republican  managers  in  Indiana  what  he 
thought  regarding  that  telegram.     He,  the  chairman  of 
a   county   committee,   replied:    "The  only  trouble   about 
that  telegram  was  that  they  thought  it  sufficient  to  divide 
the  people  into  blocks  of  five.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  had 
divided  our  voters  into  blocks  of  one.     Each  individual 
voter  in  my  county  who  was  at  all  doubtful  was  assigned 
separately  to  a  trusted  man  to  take  care  of  him  and  to 
see  that  he  voted  our  way."     This  shows  something  of 
the  very  careful  management  of  any  important    political 
campaign.     Every  voter's  name  is  taken  and  each  man  is 
individually  looked  after.    Most  of  the  voters,  it  is  known, 
will  be  Democrats  or  Republicans  or  Prohibitionists  or 
Labor  Men  or  Socialists,  from  tradition  or  some  real  or 
fancied  interest;    but  besides  these  there  will  be  found 
a  considerable  number  of  doubtful  voters,  —  either  the 
very  intelligent  independent  voters,  or  those  whose  votes 
can  be  bought.    Each  of  these  doubtful  voters  in  every 
district  will  be  carefully  thought  over  and  will  be  looked 
after  by  each  party  manager.     If  there  is  any  likelihood 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  65 

of  changing  a  vote,  the  means  by  which  it  can  best  be 
changed,  whether  by  argument,  by  literature,  by  the  solici- 
tation of  a  friend  or  lawyer,  or  by  the  use  of  money,  will 
be  considered,  and  the  most  effective  means  will  probably 
be  employed.  Conditions,  of  course,  differ  greatly  in  dif- 
ferent localities;  in  some,  practically  every  vote  is  safe 
in  one  party  or  the  other,  but  I  have  known  districts  in 
which  practically  every  voter  was  doubtful. 

With  this  condition  regarding  the  voters,  we  see  how 
important  definite,  rigid,  intelligent  organization  is.  If  we 
wish  our  political  views  put  into  effect,  we  ought  to  assist 
our  party  organization  to  do  everything  that  is  honorable 
and  patriotic,  in  order  to  have  our  party  secure  the 
position  of  advantage  in  carrying  out  our  political  views, 
that  is,  to  get  the  offices.  ..  But  let  us  not  forget  that  dis- 
honorable practices  will  injure  the  country  more  than  the 
success  of  the  opposing  party. 

We  ought  not  to  feel  that  our  country  or  our  constitution 
is  in  danger,  whatever  party  wins.  The  great  mass  of  the 
people  wish  our  constitution  upheld  and  wish  our  govern- 
ment as  a  whole  to  be  successful ;  and  whichever  party  wins 
in  any  contest,  if  the  members  of  that  party  find  by  testing 
it  that  they  have  adopted  the  wrong  policy,  they  will  soon 
change  it  to  one  which  is,  relatively  speaking,  sound. 
The  real  stability  of  our  government  in  the  United  States 
is  not  at  stake  in  any  election.  That  should  be  kept  in 
mind  as  a  fundamental  belief  under  any  ordinary  circum- 
stances.    There  may  come  times  of  revolution. 

While,  then,  it  is  the  first  duty  of  every  political  party  to 
get  the  offices  in  order  that  its  views  may  be  put  into  effect, 
it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  there  is  danger  that  if  the 
party  remains  in  power  for  any  length  of  time,  it  may  be- 


66  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

come  corrupt  and  attempt  to  use  its  powers  for  selfish  ends, 
to  further  the  ends  of  the  party  managers,  and  not  to  seek 
the  good  of  the  state.  A  party  has  no  right  to  existence 
at  all  excepting  for  the  good  of  the  state.  In  consequence, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  individual  voter  to  observe  carefully 
and  continuously  the  acts  of  his  party  leaders,  to  note 
whether  they  use  their  power  for  personal  ends  instead  of 
for  the  public  interest,  and  to  keep  in  positions  of  leadership 
only  unselfish  patriots.  ««_ 

By  what  principles  is  party  membership  determined? 
Many  political  philosophers  say  that  the  age  of  the  citizen 
has  an  influence;  young  men  will  be  radical,  old  men  con- 
servative. This  has  probably  a  modicum  of  truth  in  it, 
but  temperaments  are  not  changed  so  much  by  years  as  is 
often  imagined.  The  temperament  of  individuals  is  very 
noteworthy  in  the  settlement  of  all  life  questions,  whether 
in  business  or  religion  or  pleasure  or  politics.  It  is  inter- 
esting always  to  note  the  temperaments  and  in  consequence 
the  views  of  individual  members  of  any  group  with  which 
we  happen  to  be  associated,  —  boards  of  directors,  church 
committees,  university  faculties,  or  what  not.  I  have 
often  amused  myself  by  picking  out  the  membership  of  the 
parties  in  the  university  faculty  of  which  I  am  a  member. 
When  any  question  of  university  policy  comes  up,  one  can 
ordinarily  predict  that  this  man  will  vote  in  such  a  way; 
a  more  conservative  man  will  regularly  have  another  view- 
point ;  and  in  fact  the  university  faculty,  unconsciously  to 
its  members,  is  divided  into  parties  almost  as  rigid  as  those 
found  in  the  state  at  large.  The  principles  involved  in  a 
careful  study  of  such  parties  in  churches  or  business 
organizations  or  boards  of  directors  are  exactly  the  same 
that  are  found  in  the  study  of  political  parties  excepting 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  67 

so  far  as  the  members  of  these  special  boards  or  commit- 
tees are  more  nearly  uniform  in  their  general  habits  of 
society  and  life  and  thought  than  are  the  great  mass  of 
voters. 

As  are  these  men,  so  are  members  of  political  parties 
often  determined  in  their  views  by  their  environment, 
their  inherited  opinions,  and  their  habits  of  life.  Owing 
to  mental  inertia,  most  people  take  their  political  opinions 
as  they  take  their  social  and  religious  views,  from  those 
with  whom  they  associate.  Boys  who  carry  banners  in 
political  processions  of  a  party  are  likely  to  become  men 
devoted  to  that  party. 

A  person's  business  environment  often  affects  his  vote 
because  he  sees  his  business  interests,  and  he  is  not  likely 
to  see  that  his  business  interests  conflict  with  those  of  the 
public,  even  if  such  a  conflict  exists. 

I  have  often  been  interested  in  discussing  the  question 
of  the  tariff  with  persons  in  different  lines  of  business.  The 
manufacturer,  whose  products  are  protected  from  strong 
foreign  competition  by  a  tariff,  is  almost  certain  to  be  a 
protectionist,  and  he  will  say  with  perfect  conscientiousness : 
"I  need  protection;  the  policy  of  protection  is  good  for 
business.  If  the  tariff  were  removed,  it  would  put  me  into 
bankruptcy  and  would  ruin  the  business  of  the  country." 
And  that  man  will  think  it  vital  to  the  interests  of  the 
country  as  a  whole  that  the  tariff  be  upheld.  Another  man 
who  is,  let  us  say,  the  producer  of  raw  material  and  who  is 
anxious  to  have  large  importations  in  order  that  the  de- 
mand for  our  exports  may  be  stimulated,  is  much  more 
likely  to  feel  that  the  tariff  ought  to  be  lowered  or  re- 
moved. He  sees  the  interests  of  the  country  as  a  whole 
through  the  eyes  of  his  own  special  business.    He  is  a  rare 


68  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

man  who  is  broad-minded  enough  to  see  that  the  best 
interests  of  the  public  in  general  may  differ  from  his  own 
private  financial  interests.  Still  more  rare  is  the  man 
who,  when  convinced  of  that  condition  of  affairs,  is  ready 
to  say,  It  is  my  duty  to  vote  for  the  interests  of  the 
public  rather  than  for  my  own  interests.  Yet  that  is  the 
position  which  the  voter  ought  to  reach,  and  when  he 
considers  the  question  of  joining  himself  to  a  political 
party,  he  ought  to  ask,  Do  the  tenets  of  that  party 
further  the  interests  of  the  country  as  a  whole?  rather 
than,  Do  the  tenets  of  that  party  further  my  private 
interests  ? 

And  yet  it  is,  of  course,  a  fact  that  if  each  person  carefully 
considers  his  own  personal  interest,  the  general  consensus 
of  opinion  —  theoretically  the  resultant  of  the  opinions  of  all 
of  the  individuals  —  would  probably  give  one  that  would 
further  the  best  interests  of  the  country  at  large.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  public  welfare 
a  very  serious  fault  for  voters  to  consider  their  own  individ- 
ual interests. 

But  the  great  force,  after  all,  in  determining  the  member- 
ship of  a  party  is  that  of  habit  and  inertia  rather  than  that 
of  conscious  independent  judgment.  Relatively  few  people 
are  independent  of  some  regular  political  party  and  de- 
termine from  time  to  time,  on  consideration  of  the  merits 
of  the  issues  of  the  day  and  of  the  candidates,  what  their 
votes  shall  be.  Such  people,  mugwumps,  must  always  be, 
relatively  speaking,  few,  because  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  have  neither  the  training  nor  the  temperament  to 
think  out  the  issues  of  the  day  at  every  election. 

And  again,  the  really  free,  intelligent,  conscientious  voter 
might  find  it  very  difficult  or   even   wrong  to   take  the 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  69 

position  of  the  mugwump.  If  one  has  been  a  member  of 
a  political  organization  for  a  number  of  years,  so  that  he 
has  become  influential  in  the  councils  of  that  party,  and  in 
some  election,  in  opposition  to  his  wishes  and  his  advice,  the 
party  managers  frame  a  platform  which  he  thinks  unwise, 
what  is  he  to  do?  If  he  withdraws  from  the  party,  he 
thereby  weakens  his  influence  in  its  councils  and  in  the 
state  at  large.  If  he  stays  by  his  party  in  the  hope  that 
with  the  influence  that  he  has  now  he  may  eventually 
persuade  it  to  do  what  he  believes  best,  he  may  quite 
possibly  ultimately  accomplish  a  greater  good  for  the  state. 
Can  a  person  in  the  long  run  influence  the  policies  of  his 
country  best  by  taking  the  position  of  a  man  who  will  coop- 
erate with  others  and  who,  in  the  case  of  an  emergency,  is 
willing  to  yield  a  little  of  what  he  thinks  wise  and  best  for 
the  sake  of  furthering  finally  and,  on  the  whole,  the  interests 
of  his  country?  Or  will  he  perhaps  accomplish  more  by 
taking  the  position  of  a  hostile  critic  standing  outside  and 
saying,  "I  will  punish  to  the  best  of  my  ability  every  party 
and  every  individual  who  does  what  I  think  wrong  "  ?  That 
question  can  probably  not  be  answered  in  general  terms. 
Each  individual  must  answer  it  for  himself  in  every  special 
case.  Generally  speaking,  probably,  the  average  citizen, 
especially  if  he  is  a  man  of  some  considerable  influence, 
will  accomplish  more  if  he  stands  by  his  party,  even 
though  at  times  he  is  far  from  satisfied,  than  by  taking  the 
position  of  a  hostile  critic.  He  can  usually  help  his  country 
best  by  helping  shape  his  party's  policy.  And  yet  no 
one  can  fail  to  recognize  the  important  influence  for 
good  that  has  often  been  exerted  in  a  state  like  New  York 
by  the  group  of  independent  thinkers  who  are  willing  to 
go  from  one  party  to  another  in  order  to  satisfy  their  minds 


70  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

on  special  issues.  Through  this  influence  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  type  of  candidates  has  been  greatly 
improved,  —  far  more  than  would  have  been  uhe  case  had 
there  not  been  this  large  group  of  independent  voters. 

Persons  ought  not  to  be  bound  by  a  mere  party  name  as 
many  people  are.  We  know  how  easy  it  has  often  been 
and  still  is  to  conjure  with  some  great  name.  How  many 
voters  are  swayed  by  the  name  of  Jefferson  or  the  name  of 
Lincoln,  and  yet  these  great  names  are  generally  mere 
party  traditions :  Lincoln  is  above  all  parties,  as  Washing- 
ton is;  he  belongs  to  the  whole  country.  But  thoughtful 
individuals  will  not  be  bound  by  the  name  of  the  party  or 
that  of  a  great  leader.  No  party  can  live  for  many  years 
without  changing  its  general  line  of  policy.  The  Republican 
party  in  1856  was  the  same  in  name  that  it  is  to-day,  but 
since  that  date  the  general  line  of  activity  of  the  party 
has  changed  three  or  four  times.  The  same  thing  is  true 
of  the  Democrats.  When  one  issue  has  been  practically 
settled,  a  new  issue  arises.  What  is  a  Republican  policy 
at  one  time  may  quite  possibly  become  a  Democratic  policy 
at  another.  Now  most  people,  the  mass  of  the  people,  cling 
to  the  party  name,  whatever  the  issues  of  the  day.  One 
should  balance  those  issues  for  himself  and  ask  the  question, 
Can  I  in  the  long  run  do  more  for  my  country  by  standing 
with  my  party,  even  though  I  am  not  in  harmony  on  every 
minor  issue,  or  by  voting  specifically  on  the  issues  of  the 
day? 

In  most  times  we  find  political  parties  divided  into  the 
government  party  and  the  opposition,  the  ins  and  the  outs. 
It  is  a  good  thing  to  have  parties  divided  along  that  line ; 
it  tends  toward  a  critical  examination  of  policies.  The 
party  in  power  naturally  wants  the  government  strength- 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  71 

ened;  it  is  inclined  to  favor  centralization.  The  opposi- 
tion party  normally  tends  toward  particularism  and 
wants  the  central  government  weakened.  In  most  states 
the  party  in  power  is  inclined  to  be  conservative  as  it 
feels  responsibility.  The  party  out  of  power  will  promise 
almost  anything,  even  along  most  radical  lines,  if  it  will 
help  it  to  get  in.  Some  years  ago  a  committee  of  the  state 
legislature  visited  a  state  university  to  inspect  its  work 
and  decide  upon  proper  appropriations.  The  committee 
included  the  leaders  of  both  majority  and  minority  parties. 
After  its  round  of  inspection  the  committee  met  the  throng 
of  students  and  citizens  in  the  great  hall  of  the  university. 
The  leader  of  the  opposition  having  no  responsibility  told 
how  greatly  he  had  been  pleased  with  what  he  had  seen, 
stated  that  he  thought  the  university  should  be  given  a 
very  liberal  appropriation  since  it  was  doing  so  well,  and 

added,  "And  I  call  upon  Mr. ,  the  leader  of  the  House, 

to  stand  with  me  in  this  regard  and  do  what  he  can  for 
this  great  university."  But  when  the  leader  of  the  major- 
ity arose  to  speak,  he  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
leader  of  the  opposition  could  easily  make  liberal  prom- 
ises, since  he  had  no  power  and  his  offer  was  perfectly  safe, 
continuing:  "But  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  the  responsi- 
bility rests  upon  me.  I  may  say  that  I  have  been  pleased; 
I  will  do  what,  on  the  whole,  I  think  wise,  but  I  cannot 
make  now  any  definite  promises,  because  the  responsibility 
rests  upon  me."     Like  these  leaders  are  the  parties. 

Much  has  been  said  with  reference  to  third  parties  and 
their  desirability.  In  the  great  democratic  countries,  — 
England  and  the  United  States,  —  two  chief  parties  exist. 
If  a  special  issue  comes  up,  such  as  slavery,  or  the  prohibi- 
tion of  the  liquor  traffic,  or  special  labor  legislation,  and 


72  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

neither  of  the  great  parties  finds  it  wise  or  convenient  to 
take  up  this  issue,  the  question  arises  as  to  whether  a 
third  party  ought  to  be  organized.  In  many  instances 
the  best  way  to  promulgate  an  idea  is  to  organize  a  third 
party  and  to  work  as  vigorously  as  possible  to  get  into 
power.  If  the  issue  is  really  one  of  prime  importance, 
as  was  the  question  of  the  extension  of  slavery  into  the 
territories  before  the  Civil  War,  the  third  party  is  likely  to 
secure  such  influence  that  either  the  question  must  be 
taken  up  by  one  of  the  existing  large  parties,  or  the  third 
party  becomes  the  dominant  one  as  did  the  Republican 
party  after  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War.  But  unless  the 
third  party  within  a  comparatively  short  time  becomes 
itself  very  prominent  or  has  its  policies  adopted  by  one 
of  the  great  parties,  it  is  a  reasonable  assumption  that  its 
issue  is  not  of  prime  importance.  Under  those  circum- 
stances is  it  worth  while  to  devote  one's  time  and  energies 
and  money  to  further  discussion  of  the  question,  or  would 
it  be  better,  after  the  matter  has  been  fully  tested  for  a 
few  years,  to  relinquish  one's  efforts  for  the  time  being  and 
to  devote  one's  energies  rather  to  carrying  through  one 
of  the  issues  of  the  day  which  is  prominent  enough  so 
that  one's  influence  may  count?  This  question  ought  to 
be  very  seriously  considered  by  persons  of  unselfish,  devoted 
natures  who  try  year  after  year  to  carry  their  ideas  into 
effect  and  find  that  they  are  making  practically  no  head- 
way. May  it  not  well  be  true  that  energy  so  expended 
is  thrown  away  and  that  a  person  by  following  this  small 
third  party  may  be  practically  wasting  his  time  instead  of 
using  it  wisely?  There  may  be  hope  fifty  years  hence  for 
the  special  issue.  This  suggestion  is  not  a  condemnation 
of  a  third  party;  that  is  perhaps  the  best  way  in  which  to 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  73 

get  a  new  problem  of  the  day  before  the  people.  The 
question  is  that  of  the  true  function  of  a  third  party  in 
a  country  like  the  United  States  as  a  means  to  bring 
forward  and  urge  a  new  issue  until  that  issue  has  been 
thoughtfully  tested  before  the  country. 

In  cities  and  towns  and  states  there  are  often  local 
issues  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  national  politics. 
Nevertheless,  in  view  of  the  influence  which  political  parties 
exert  and  ought  to  exert  in  national  questions,  they  will 
naturally  extend  their  organization  into  the  local  dis- 
tricts. The  greater  issues,  the  national  issues,  tend  to 
obscure  the  local  ones,  and  yet  these  local  problems  are  for 
many  of  us  as  individuals  of  much  more  importance  than 
the  national  issue.  It  is  likely  to  make  much  more  differ- 
ence to  me  individually  who  is  the  next  school-teacher 
that  has  charge  of  my  children  than  who  is  the  next  Presi- 
dent. We  too  often  forget,  moreover,  that  the  local 
issue  is  entirely  different  from  the  national  issue,  and  that 
our  vote  on  local  matters  ought  to  be  cast  independently 
of  our  views  on  federal  questions,  no  matter  what  claims 
are  made  by  party  managers.  Sometimes  national  issues 
may  be  of  so  overwhelming  importance  —  the  Civil  War 
was  such  a  special  issue  —  that  it  is  difficult  to  feel  our- 
selves free  to  exercise  the  option  of  the  individual  in  local 
matters  and  yet  be  bound  upon  that  prime  national  issue. 
Ordinarily,  probably  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred, 
with  most  voters,  the  local  issues  are  far  too  much  ob- 
scured by  the  national  ones,  but  we  ought  to  see  to  it  that 
we  separate  in  our  own  minds  carefully  the  local  from  the 
national  and  vote  accordingly. 

In  the  selection  of  candidates  for  office  also,  some  offices 
are,  in  their  nature,  political,  and  the  policy  of  the  country 


74  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

is  determined  by  the  character  of  the  men  who  hold 
them.  To  those  offices  the  successful  party  has  a  just 
claim.  They  ought  to  be  filled  by  party  men  because  they 
determine  party  issues.  It  has  become  clear  during  the 
history  of  our  country  that  the  President's  cabinet  should 
be  made  up  of  men  belonging  to  the  same  party,  in  order 
that  the  questions  of  public  policy  on  which  the  President 
was  elected  may  be  kept  in  mind  and  may  be  carried  out 
effectively  in  the  interests  of  all  of  the  people.  A  very 
great  majority  of  the  offices,  however,  are  purely  adminis- 
trative or  even  clerical  in  character.  There  is  no  need 
why  these  should  be  filled  by  party  men.  There  can  be 
no  such  thing  as  Republican  bookkeeping  or  Democratic 
letter-writing,  and  clerical  offices  ought  not  to  be  filled  by 
party  men  for  party  reasons. 

In  Great  Britain,  when  there  is  a  change  of  the  party 
in  power,  less  than  a  hundred  men  change  office.  In 
this  country  there  is  no  need  why  a  very  much  larger 
number  should  change. 

Party  leadership  as  such  gives  a  claim  to  office  only 
so  far  as  experience  shows  that  the  leader  has  won  the 
confidence  of  the  voters  and  is  an  able  man  of  adminis- 
trative ability.  It  is  important  that  the  office-holder  be 
able  and  tried.  It  is  also  important  that  he  have  the 
confidence  of  the  people.  These  qualifications  can  often 
be  well  tested  in  party  organizations. 

There  is  also  in  very  many  cases  a  decided  advantage 
in  public  men  being  the  possessors  of  a  considerable  amount 
of  private  wealth,  so  that  they  may  be  independent  of 
their  office-holding.  Considering  the  necessities  of  our 
party  organizations,  a  poor  man  who  must  earn  his  living 
and  who,  if  he  takes  office,  must  be  dependent  upon  his 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  75 

official  salary,  can  frequently  not  be  as  independent  of 
the  party  leaders  as  he  ought  to  be.  While  we  may 
properly  regret  the  fact  that  the  wealth  of  office-seekers 
has  sometimes  had  much  to  do  with  securing  them  position, 
we  should  likewise  recognize  that  the  man  whose  wealth 
is  sufficient  so  that  he  does  not  need  the  office,  can  adminis- 
ter it,  if  he  will,  far  more  independently  of  party  leaders 
or  of  outside  influence,  or  even  of  temptation  to  dishonesty, 
than  the  man  who  must  hold  the  office  in  order  to  get  a 
living.  And  yet  the  man  whose  living  does  not  depend 
upon  his  work  is  more  likely  to  be  neglectful  of  that  work. 
It  must  be  noted  that  always  there  is  a  balancing  of  advan- 
tages and  disadvantages  in  such  matters. 

A  person  ought  to  be  really  devoted  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  country.  The  difficulty  in  many  cases  is  that  people 
forget  that  devotion  to  the  party  ought  to  be  only  for  the 
sake  of  the  country.  "So  long  as  the  true  theory  of  the 
public  as  a  means  to  government  ends  for  the  good  of  the 
country  is  preserved,  it  will  continue  to  be  true  that  he 
serves  his  party  best  who  serves  his  country  best." 


REPRESENTATION 

The  principles  of  representation  in  government  have 
become  of  special  significance  only  in  modern  times.  In 
the  ancient  city  state,  where  the  citizens  might  all  come 
together  and  legislate  directly  upon  public  affairs,  there 
was  no  need  of  representation.  In  a  country  ruled  by  a 
despot,  there  can  be  no  representative  system.  It  is, 
therefore,  only  in  the  modern  country  state  in  distinction 
from  the  ancient  city  state  that  the  principle  of  representa- 
tion has  become  of  special  significance.  Nevertheless, 
in  connection  with  this  system  many  points  should  be 
noted  to  see  whether,  in  the  modern  state,  the  principles 
of  representation  are  so  used  as  to  get  the  best  results 
for  the  welfare  of  the  people. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  question  in  connection 
with  representation  is  this:  Are  the  representatives  as  we 
find  them  in  our  legislatures  or  even  in  our  executive 
chambers  to  be  looked  upon  merely  as  delegates  of  their 
constituencies,  to  voice  the  expressed  wishes  of  their  people  ; 
or  are  they  rather  to  be  considered  as  representative 
citizens  who,  at  meetings  of  the  legislative  bodies  or  in 
association  with  other  executives,  after  discussion  of  the 
questions  before  them,  shall  themselves  as  independent 
men  and  citizens  decide  the  issues  before  them  in  accord- 
ance with  their  own  best  judgment?    Are  representatives 

76 


REPRESENTATION  77 

to  be  looked  upon  as  mere  delegates,  mouthpieces,  or  as 
representative  men,  speaking  independently? 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  United  States  at  the 
present  day  our  representatives  in  state  legislatures  and 
in  Congress  in  many  cases  stand  chiefly  as  delegates.  If 
they  can  in  any  way  find  out  what  their  constituents  wish, 
that  they  do.  And  yet  there  are  many  men  who,  while 
keeping  well  in  mind  the  wishes  of  their  constituents,  will 
still  take  the  broader  view  and  within  wide  limits  use  an 
independent  judgment. 

Some  years  ago,  when  the  question  of  the  creation  of 
Greater  New  York  was  under  discussion  at  Albany,  a 
number  of  members  of  the  Assembly,  before  voting,  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  while  they  themselves  believed 
it  would  be  better  for  the  state  of  New  York  to  defeat  the 
bill,  nevertheless  they  would  vote  for  it  because,  after  con- 
sulting their  constituents,  they  found  that  those  con- 
stituents wished  the  law.  They  voted  contrary  to  their 
convictions  to  please  their  constituents.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  will  be  recalled  that  Edmund  Burke,  on  the  ques- 
tion of  conciliation  with  America,  voted  deliberately  against 
what  he  believed  to  be  the  immediate  wishes  of  his  con- 
stituents. His  address  before  the  electors  of  Bristol  is  per- 
haps the  best  example  we  have  of  a  representative  taking 
boldly  the  position  that  it  is  his  business  to  do  the  thinking 
for  his  constituents,  that  he  has  to  stand  for  his  own 
opinions  and  not  the  unthinking  wishes  of  his  people. 
I  "maintained  your  interest,"  he  said,  "against  your 
opinions,  with  a  constancy  that  became  me.  A  represen- 
tative worthy  of  you  ought  to  be  a  person  of  stability. 
I  am  to  look  indeed  to  your  opinions :  but  to  such  opinions 
as  you  and  I  must  have  five  years  hence.     I  was  not  to 


78  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

look  to  the  flash  of  the  day."  I  have  attended  many 
political  conventions  and  have  listened  to  the  addresses 
of  many  candidates  to  constituencies  in  the  United  States. 
I  have  never  heard  an  expression  of  that  kind.  Rather 
we  hear  much  said  about  the  wisdom  of  the  common 
people,  about  how  much  more  all  the  people  know  than 
any  individual,  and  in  consequence  how  it  is  that  the  rep- 
resentative will  feel  himself  bound  to  carry  out  the  wishes 
of  his  constituents.  Now,  to  state  the  question  perfectly 
clearly,  How  by  adding  ignorance  to  ignorance  shall  we  get 
wisdom  ?  Simply  because  a  great  many  uninformed  people 
agree  upon  some  subject  which  they  have  not  carefully 
thought  out,  is  there  much  likelihood  of  their  being  right  ? 
Is  it  not  more  likely  that  the  man  will  be  an  expert  and  will 
be  right  who  has  studied  the  question,  who  feels  the  re- 
sponsibility upon  him  of  deciding  it  after  considering  it  in 
all  its  bearings,  keeping  in  mind  the  interests  not  merely 
of  his  local  constituency  but  also  of  all  the  constituencies 
in  the  country  ? 

A  representative  stands  not  merely  for  the  comparatively 
few  people  who  have  elected  him.  He  stands  for  the  people 
of  the  entire  country  which  he  is  representing,  so  that  he 
should  study,  not  only  the  interests  of  his  immediate  con- 
stituents, but  also  the  interests  of  the  whole  country. 
Under  those  circumstances,  from  the  point  of  vantage 
which  he  possesses  through  the  opportunity  of  consulting 
with  representatives  from  all  other  constituencies  through- 
out the  country,  he  may  well  make  up  his  mind  more  wisely 
than  can  his  constituents.  The  idea  that  the  man  repre- 
sents his  local  district  or  even  that  he  is  to  recognize 
merely  the  wishes  or  the  selfish  interests  of  individual 
constituents  against  the  welfare  of  the  country  at  large, 


REPRESENTATION  79 

is  a  doctrine,  that  while  in  practice  it  has  very  great  cur- 
rency, is  certainly  not  one  to  be  commended. 

And  yet  a  representative  should  by  no  means  neglect 
the  local  interests  of  his  constituents.  Those  interests 
in  a  very  great  majority  of  cases  will  not  be  found  in  con- 
flict with  the  interests  of  the  state.  Even  the  interests  of 
individual  companies  or  persons  may  well  be  looked  after 
in  the  interests  of  the  country  as  a  whole.  It  is  of  course 
the  business  of  the  representative  to  look  after  such  inter- 
ests of  his  constituents  and  to  serve  them  in  every  way 
possible,  so  long  as  they  do  not  come  in  conflict  with  the 
broader  interests  of  the  state. 

Before,  however,  we  consider  the  effect  of  the  two 
systems  on  the  character  of  the  representative  men,  we 
may  note  that  under  present  conditions  and  customs,  if  a 
representative  desires  a  reelection,  he  needs  to  be  cautious 
regarding  the  degree  of  independence  upon  which  he  insists. 
Edmund  Burke,  in  spite  of  the  noble  address  that  he  made 
in  favor  of  his  position,  was  compelled  to  withdraw  from 
his  canvass  and  to  lose  his  reelection.  In  consequence  of 
such  possibilities  our  candidates  often  flatter  their  constit- 
uents to  secure  the  election.  But  the  people  should  as 
rapidly  as  possible  come  to  know  that  the  candidate  who 
flatters  them  is  not  the  one  who  can  best  protect  their  real 
interests. 

If  the  people  get  into  the  habit  of  looking  upon  their 
representatives  as  their  mere  delegates  to  carry  out  their 
will,  they  are  likely  to  assume  that  the  representation  is  not 
merely  in  political  matters,  but  that  it  extends  to  other 
lines  as  well.  A  congressman,  if  he  is  not  independent, 
or  if  he  flatters  too  much  his  constituents,  is  likely  to  be- 
come more  or  less  of  an  errand  boy  to  do  whatever  he  can 


80  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

for  them  at  the  capital  city.  Any  representative  is  ready 
to  laugh,  though  somewhat  bitterly  at  times,  at  letters  which 
he  receives  from  his  constituents  asking  him  to  go  to  some 
of  the  departments  regarding  matters  that  have  to  do  with 
the  personal  welfare  of  the  constituent  rather  than  with 
the  interests  of  the  country.  The  time  which  ought  to  be 
devoted  to  studying  the  public  questions  of  the  hour  is 
taken  up  largely  in  carrying  out  wishes  of  certain  individ- 
uals for  some  selfish  end.  On  the  other  hand,  if  constitu- 
ents feel  that  they  have  chosen  the  most  representative 
citizen  of  their  constituency,  the  man  who,  on  the  whole, 
knows  best  what  is  good  for  them  and  for  the  good  of  the 
country  at  large,  they  will  more  rarely  venture  to  trespass 
upon  his  time  for  personal  reasons. 

If  we  keep  in  mind  primarily  the  delegate  idea,  we  are 
likely  to  secure  a  representative  of  a  somewhat  lower  type 
than  if  the  representative  is  made  to  feel  that  his  prime 
business  is  to  study  independently  to  express  his  own 
judgment,  and  to  take  the  responsibility  of  furthering  as 
best  he  may  his  country's  welfare. 

The  delegate  idea  favors  the  demagogue.  He  may  make 
promises  or  run  errands  to  get  votes.  In  this  way  he  may 
hold  his  position,  but  he  cannot  do  much  to  further  the 
country's  interests. 

In  the  United  States,  under  our  present  system  of  dis- 
trict representation,  there  is  great  opportunity  of  gerry- 
mandering, that  is  to  say,  it  is  relatively  easy  for  the  party 
that  has  control  of  the  state  legislature  when  the  state  is 
redistricted,  so  to  arrange  the  districts  that  the  voting 
strength  of  the  parties  within  the  state  will  insure  to  the 
benefit  of  the  party  in  power.  The  influence  of  the  gerry- 
mander is  much  greater  than  is  often  supposed.    A  majority 


REPRESENTATION  81 

of  the  representatives  in  the  51st  Congress,  which  enacted 
the  McKinley  tariff  law,  were  elected  by  a  minority  of  the 
voters,  owing  to  the  district  system.  In  the  53d  Congress, 
elected  in  1892,  had  the  representation  been  in  proportion 
to  the  votes  cast,  the  Democratic  majority  of  79  would 
have  been  a  Democratic  minority  of  10.  Two  years  later 
on  similar  lines  the  Republicans,  with  48.4  per  cent  of  the 
total  vote,  elected  68.8  per  cent  of  the  Congressmen. 
In  Indiana,  in  1892,  owing  to  the  gerrymander,  it  required 
126,834  Republican  votes  to  elect  one  congressman,  but 
only  23,565  Democratic  votes,  that  is,  one  Democratic 
vote  was  worth  5.4  Republican  votes.  In  1894,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Republicans  elected  the  entire  delegation 
of  13  members,  although  under  a  system  giving  the  par- 
ties an  equal  chance,  the  Republicans  would  have  been 
entitled  to  only  7.  In  Massachusetts,  in  one  instance,  after 
the  Republican  redistricting,  it  took  75,000  votes  to  elect 
one  Democrat  to  Congress,  while  less  than  18,000  would 
elect  a  Republican. 

Aside  from  the  abuse  of  the  gerrymander  are  others 
coming  from  the  party  organization.  As  has  been  seen, 
we  must  have  an  organization,  but  when  the  machine 
makes  rules  of  party  voting  in  the  caucuses  such  that  not 
more  than  10  per  cent  of  the  party  can  readily  vote  upon 
nominations,  we  have  nothing  like  a  fair,  just  represen- 
tation of  the  voters. 

In  certain  countries  representation  is  not  that  of  individ- 
uals, but  rather  of  certain  classes  in  the  community.  It 
may  well  be  questioned  whether,  in  some  countries  at  any 
rate,  it  may  not  be  best  to  have  the  various  social  or  in- 
dustrial classes,  as  such,  represented  instead  of  individ- 
uals under  the  assumption  that  there  are  no  classes  in  the 


82  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

country.  In  Prussia,  especially  in  the  election  of  members 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  wealthy  man  is  given 
a  much  greater  voting  power  than  a  poor  man,  so  much  so 
that  in  certain  districts  where  there  are  great  corporations 
or  one  very  wealthy  man,  this  one  man  or  one  family  or  one 
corporation  will  elect  a  third  of  the  members  of  the  entire 
representative  body.  In  Essen,  for  example,  where  the 
Krupp  Iron  Works  are  situated,  the  managers  of  that  es- 
tablishment alone  have  the  power  to  elect  one-third 
of  the  representatives,  whereas  at  the  other  extreme  it 
takes  some  thousands  of  voters  to  elect  an  equal  number. 
In  Austria,  on  the  other  hand,  as  well  as  in  certain  sections 
of  Germany,  in  local  matters  there  is  a  representation  of 
the  industrial  classes,  the  great  land  owners,  the  chambers 
of  commerce,  the  average  citizens,  and  so  on.  In  Norway 
the  country  districts  so  outrank  those  of  the  city  in  numbers 
and  representative  power  that  to  each  city  voter  is  given 
sometimes  four  times  the  voting  strength  of  that  belong- 
ing to  the  country  voter  and  still  the  country  represen- 
tatives outnumber. 

And  so  it  would  be  but  a  fair  question  for  us  to  consider 
(I  am  not  advocating  it,  merely  discussing  it)  whether, 
on  the  whole,  in  a  city  like  New  York  we  should  have  the 
real  interests  of  the  community  served  better  by  having 
in  our  city  councils  a  certain  number  of  representatives  of 
the  chamber  of  commerce,  a  certain  number  of  the  trade 
unions,  a  certain  number,  let  us  say,  from  the  merchants' 
associations,  a  certain  number  from  the  bankers,  a  certain 
number  from  the  clergymen.  May  it  not  well  be  that  a 
representation  of  the  interests  of  various  classes,  openly 
and  frankly  acknowledged,  might  give  us  results  equally 
as  good  as  —  possibly  better  than  —  a  representation  of 


REPRESENTATION  83 

various  individuals  who,  though  they  nominally  do  not 
represent  classes  in  many  cases,  are  practically  controlled 
by  those  classes. 

In  New  York  we  have  frequently  seen  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  New  York  City  in  the  state  legislature  are 
outvoted  by  the  representatives  of  the  so-called  up-country 
districts,  even  though  the  question  at  interest  is  one  that 
concerns  primarily  the  city.  Is  this  just?  Should  we  give 
a  larger  proportionate  representation  to  the  country  dis- 
tricts ? 

A  representation  of  classes  is  sometimes  found  in  our 
legislatures  without  any  previous  plan.  Most  legislatures 
have  a  very  large  representation  of  lawyers,  sometimes  71  to 
75  per  cent.  Of  course  lawyers  are  in  the  habit  of  standing 
for  the  interests  of  their  clients  and  they  are  familiar  with 
the  business  of  a  legislature.  So  we  may  see  how  natural  it 
is,  perhaps,  that  we  should  have  this  large  representation  of 
lawyers  in  practically  all  of  our  legislatures;  but  it  is 
very  decidedly  questionable  whether,  on  the  whole,  it  is 
best  for  the  interests  of  our  country  that  they  have  quite  so 
large  a  proportion. 

Much  has  been  said  at  times  against  the  representatives 
of  labor  that  we  find  in  Congress  and  the  state  legislatures. 
These  representatives  are  likely  to  be  men  less  skilled  than 
the  lawyers ;  but  the  question  is,  after  all,  whether  there  is  a 
person  from  any  other  class  in  the  community  who  is  closely 
enough  in  touch  with  the  so-called  working  classes  (the 
hand  laborers  mostly)  that  he  can  really  see  their  needs 
and  can  thus  represent  them  in  the  best  way. 

It  is  extremely  desirable  that  legislators  take  to  heart  the 
interests  of  the  people.  It  is  extremely  desirable,  too,  that 
they  have  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  conditions  of  the 


84  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

different  classes  in  the  community  in  different  parts  of 
the  state  so  that  they  may  be  sure  that  there  is  no  class 
whose  interests  are  not  carefully  looked  after.  Generally 
speaking,  it  may  well  be  best  that  the  representatives  be 
chosen  from  special  classes  in  order  that  the  interests  of 
those  classes  may  not  be  forgotten  and  may  be  cared  for  so 
far  as  they  are  consonant  with  the  interests  of  the  com- 
munity at  large. 

Much  has  been  said  in  some  European  countries,  especially 
in  Switzerland,  Belgium,  and  France,  of  the  so-called  pro- 
portional system  of  representation,  it  being  thought  by 
the  advocates  of  such  a  system  that  the  people  as  a  whole 
would  have  their  interests  best  served  if  each  group,  even 
though  a  comparatively  small  one,  whose  views  were  so 
nearly  alike  that  there  could  be  organized  to  represent  them 
even  a  small  party,  should  have  some  voice  in  the  legis- 
lature. In  the  state  of  New  York  to-day,  all  the  members 
are  either  Republicans  or  Democrats.  We  have  a  number 
of  small  parties,  —  the  Prohibitionists,  the  Labor  Party, 
the  Socialists,  etc.,  —  but  those  parties,  being  made  up  of 
members  scattered  throughout  the  state,  are  seldom,  if 
ever,  so  located  that  there  are  enough  votes  in  any  one 
district  to  secure  a  representative  in  the  state  legislature. 
Might  it  not  perhaps  be  best  for  the  interests  of  the  state 
to  have,  instead  of  this  district  system,  many  districts 
grouped  together,  so  that,  if  there  were  any  party  in  the 
state  that  cast  a  fair  quota  of  votes,  it  might  secure  at 
least  one  representative  to  speak  for  it  ?  The  true  princi- 
ple, it  is  asserted  by  the  advocates  of  this  system,  is  to  have 
the  representative  body,  as  it  were,  a  photograph  of  the 
views  of  the  people  at  large,  so  that  any  group,  even 
though  it  may  be  small,  may  have  its  interests,  even  its 


REPRESENTATION  85 

special  hobby  if  it  wishes  to  have  it  put  into  a  law,  given 
a  representative  to  speak  for  it.  Under  such  a  system  if 
we  suppose,  for  example,  that  ten  candidates  were  to  be 
elected,  one  party  might  cast,  let  us  say,  six-tenths  of  the 
votes,  another  two-tenths,  a  third  two-tenths.  Under 
those  circumstances  one  party  would  elect  six,  another 
party  two,  the  third  party  two,  of  the  candidates,  whereas, 
under  the  present  system,  generally  speaking,  the  entire 
ten  representatives  would  come  from  the  dominant  party. 

This  proportional  system  of  representation  has  many 
decided  advantages.  It  has  also  equally  decided  dis- 
advantages. For  a  number  of  years  the  system  has  been  in 
effect  in  Belgium,  and  the  Belgians  consider  it  successful. 
In  certain  cantons  in  Switzerland  it  seems  also  to  have 
succeeded,  although  in  one,  Ticino,  where  it  was  first  in- 
troduced to  settle  a  party  dispute  which  amounted  almost 
to  a  revolution,  it  has  at  length  been  given  up. 

What  are  some  of  the  advantages?  It  would  largely 
do  away  with  the  abuses  of  the  gerrymander,  inasmuch 
as,  the  district  system  being  abolished,  and  the  representa- 
tives being  chosen  on  a  general  ticket,  the  candidates  would 
be  elected  mainly  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  votes 
cast  for  them  and  the  strong  men  in  both  parties  might 
be  sure  of  an  election. 

Under  the  district  system  the  ablest  representative  of 
any  party  may  be  legislated  out  of  office  by  a  redisricting. 
After  Mr.  McKinley  had  made  his  reputation  as  the  chair- 
man of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  the  state  was  redistricted,  he  was  put  into 
a  district  where  he  could  not  be  reelected,  and  lost  in  con- 
sequence his  position.  It  makes  no  difference  what  we 
think  of  his  views  on  the  tariff;   he  was  beyond  question 


86  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

among  the  most  able,  popular,  and  best  representatives  that 
the  state  of  Ohio  had  in  Congress.  Under  a  proportional 
system  of  representation,  such  an  evil  as  that  could  not 
be  found.  The  popular  representatives  in  the  state, 
standing  normally  at  the  head  of  their  ticket,  would  be  sure 
of  an  election  year  after  year,  and  thus  the  country  would 
get  the  benefit  of  their  wisdom  and  of  the  strength  that 
comes  from  long  experience  in  office. 

A  proportional  system,  too,  would  doubtless  remove  to  a 
very  great  extent  the  temptations  to  bribery.  We  have 
legislated  seriously  to  stop  the  abuses  of  bribery  and  fraud 
in  our  elections  by  imposing  heavy  penalties.  How  much 
better  it  might  be  if  we  could  remove  the  temptation  to 
commit  the  evil.  A  Swiss  politician  some  years  ago  said 
that  in  the  canton  where  he  lived  and  where  a  good  system 
of  proportional  representation  was  employed,  there  was 
little  bribery.  He  said  that  there  used  to  be  much  in  that 
canton,  but  that  the  proportional  system  had  practically 
stopped  it  entirely,  since  it  had  become  certain  that  no  one 
party  could  get  a  majority  in  the  legislature.  There  were 
four  or  five  parties.  Each  had  a  certain  amount  of  strength 
—  none  the  majority.  Under  those  circumstances  there 
was  no  particular  advantage  in  attempting  to  bribe  voters 
so  as  to  elect  one  or  two  or  half  a  dozen  more.  Had  there 
been  the  district  system  with  two  great  parties  nearly  evenly 
balanced,  it  might  well  have  paid  to  expend  large  sums  of 
money  to  secure  the  control  of  the  legislature. 

In  a  previous  chapter  I  have  spoken  of  the  hopelessness 
of  certain  small  parties  that  exist  from  year  to  year,  but 
accomplish  little.  Under  a  proportional  system  of  repre- 
sentation, such  parties  could  presumably  get  their  voices 
heard  on  the   floor  of  the  legislature.    In  that  way  the 


REPRESENTATION  87 

voters  of  those  parties  might  at  any  rate  be  satisfied  that 
they  were  getting  a  hearing,  and  presumably  much  more 
quickly  than  now  they  would  either  succeed  in  convincing 
or  becoming  one  of  the  great  parties,  or  the  futility  of  their 
efforts  would  become  so  clear  that  they  would  abandon 
their  position.  It  is  extremely  desirable  for  the  voters  to 
feel  that  justice  at  any  rate  is  done  them. 

These  advantages  of  a  proportional  system  are  usually 
mentioned,  but  the  practical  politicians  find  also  many 
disadvantages.  The  usual  objection  made  by  politicians 
is  that  the  system  is  too  complicated,  —  must  be  too  com- 
plicated. Often  they  will  say,  of  course,  the  system  would 
be  more  nearly  just  than  our  present  one,  but  we  must 
have  a  system  that  the  voters  understand,  and  this  they 
could  not  understand. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  discuss  here  the  details  of 
any  system  of  proportional  representation.  It  is  perhaps 
sufficient  to  say  that  any  one  studying  the  question  finds 
how  little  complicated  some  of  the  systems  are,  practically 
no  more  so  than  ours.  If  the  inhabitants  of  a  country 
like  Switzerland  or  Belgium  or  Tasmania  have  had  these 
systems  in  effect  several  years  successfully,  and  they  are 
found  not  to  be  too  complicated  for  the  citizens  of  those 
countries,  surely  we  may  believe  that  the  average  American 
voter  will  have  intelligence  enough  to  use  them.  At  any 
rate  the  complications,  if  there  are  any,  are  mostly  in  the 
counting  rather  than  in  the  voting. 

Again,  if  each  group  of  people  large  enough  to  cast  a 
quota  of  votes  so  as  to  secure  one  representative  could 
make  an  independent  party,  one  might  well  expect  in  a  state 
like  New  York  eight  or  ten  different  parties,  several  of  them 
having  only  a  very  few  representatives.    As  has  often  been 


88  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

said,  each  group  of  cranks  would  have  its  representative 
in  the  legislature.  "It  is  bad  enough  now,  when  we  get 
just  a  preacher  to  deal  with,"  representatives  have  said. 
"What  would  we  do  if  all  kinds  of  cranks  were  to  make 
their  appearance?"  There  is  really  much  force  in  this 
objection.  It  is  desirable  that  members  of  the  legislature 
be  practical  men  as  well  as  honest  men.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  any  group  of  people  is  numerous  enough  so  that 
its  proportionate  share  of  the  votes  would  give  it  even  one 
representative  in  the  legislature,  the  probability  is  that 
that  group's  special  fad,  whatever  it  may  be,  is  worth  dis- 
cussion. You  never  quite  know  whether  a  man  is  a  crank 
or  a  genius  until  after  his  idea  has  been  tested.  Nearly  all 
of  the  most  noteworthy  reform  movements  in  history  have 
been  started  by  individuals  or  by  a  small  group  of  men  who 
at  first  have  been  looked  upon  as  cranks,  as  extremists.  In 
the  special  cases  where  their  principle  has  turned  out  to  be 
for  the  interest  of  the  community  at  large,  this  small  group 
of  men  have  been  merely  wise  men  who  had  somewhat  more 
foresight  than  their  fellows.  They  had  the  opportunity  to 
discuss  their  principle;  that  principle  was  gradually  ac- 
cepted by  one  after  another  until  it  became  the  dominat- 
ing principle  of  the  state.  Doubtless  in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  perhaps  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred,  when 
a  small  group  of  men  starts  a  new  idea,  the  chances  are  that 
it  is  not  worth  much,  but  you  can  never  be  quite  sure  that 
the  tenth  case  or  the  twentieth  case  or  even  the  hundredth 
case  may  not  be  one  which  will  give  to  the  country  the  most 
valuable  political  idea  of  the  generation.  It  is  worth  while, 
perhaps,  to  allow  ourselves  at  times  to  be  bored  by  ex- 
tremists, by  cranks,  because  they  will  all  give  us  ideas,  and 
even  though  we  cannot  accept  those  ideas  in  all  cases,  we 


REPRESENTATION  89 

may  be  benefited  by  them  and  sometimes  they  may  re- 
form us. 

A  more  serious  objection  to  the  proportional  system  is 
that  through  its  encouragement  of  small  parties  it  might  at 
times  occur  that  one  small  party  would  hold  the  balance  of 
power  between  the  large  ones  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  to 
that  party  an  undue  advantage.  If  three  or  four  men  might 
have  it  in  their  power  to  compel  action  as  between  the  two 
great  parties,  it  might  at  times  be  a  useful  situation ;  more 
likely  it  would  be  troublesome.  It  might  thus  also  offer 
an  opportunity  for  bribery ;  but  we  may  note  that  public 
attention  would  be  so  centered  on  the  few  that  it  would  be 
difficult  for  their  acts  to  escape  notice. 

The  politicians  fear  frequently  that  the  proportional 
system  would  prevent  our  having  a  majority  party,  and  that 
in  consequence  there  would  be  no  party  that  could  be  held 
responsible  for  legislation;  that  we  should  have  endless 
discussion  and  no  bills  passed.  There  is  doubtless  some 
force  in  the  objection,  but  there  is  also  much  to  be  said 
on  the  other  side.  Many  of  our  political  thinkers  believe 
that  one  of  our  greatest  evils  is  over-legislation,  laws  passed 
too  easily,  too  rapidly.  If  every  legislature  were  so  con- 
structed that  each  bill  passed  had  to  become  a  law  as  the 
result  of  a  compromise  between  two  or  three  parties,  or 
perhaps  of  three  parties  out  of  five,  we  might  have  fewer 
laws ;  the  chances  are  that  the  laws  that  were  passed  would 
in  many  cases  be  better  considered,  —  perhaps,  on  the 
whole,  they  would  be  more  conservative,  wiser  measures 
than  laws  passed  under  circumstances  like  the  present, 
when  a  bill  may  be  framed  by  a  small  group  of  men  among 
the  leaders  of  a  particular  party,  put  in  by  the  party 
caucus  and  "jammed  through."     There  is  no  such  thing 


90  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

as  "jamming"  legislation  through  if  you  do  not  have  a 
majority  party  and  if  legislation  is  to  be  the  result  of  a 
compromise. 

But  a  system  of  proportional  representation  does  doubtless, 
within  considerable  limits,  encourage  class  representation. 
Each  special  class  would  be  likely  to  wish  its  representative, 
and  this  might  foster  class  antagonism,  a  serious  evil  in  a 
republic.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  these  classes  exist ;  they 
do  have  real  antagonisms.  Might  it  not  perhaps  be  true  that 
if  the  classes  were  openly  recognized  and  their  representa- 
tives had  the  opportunity  of  thrashing  out  their  ideas  in 
public  on  the  floor  of  Congress  or  of  the  state  legislatures, 
less  bitterness  would  be  developed  and  fewer  evils  would 
result  than  now  when  the  small  parties  are  compelled  to 
rely  upon  the  lobby  and  when  their  members  smart  under 
a  sense  of  injustice  ? 

The  proportional  system  perhaps  intensifies  somewhat 
the  delegate  idea  of  representation.  That,  beyond  ques- 
tion, is  unfortunate  if  true ;  but  there,  again,  if  the  party  is 
small,  it  may  be  that  it  would  select  its  very  ablest  man  to 
represent  it,  and  then  would  be  willing  to  give  that  man,  a 
recognized  leader,  who  has  helped  shape  the  party  policy, 
more  discretion  than  is  usually  granted  to  the  ordinary 
representative. 

Many  ideas  can  be  brought  forward  in  favor  of  or  in 
opposition  to  such  a  system  of  representation.  Many  argu- 
ments can  be  made  in  favor  of  changes  in  other  methods 
of  representation.  One  thing  should  not  be  forgotten. 
There  will  not  be  any  one  system  adapted  to  all  countries. 
Each  political  institution  must  be  adapted  to  the  habits 
of  thinking  and  the  methods  of  action  in  political  matters 
of  the  country  under  discussion.    Any  new  proposition 


REPRESENTATION  91 

would  probably  not  be  wise  when  first  proposed.  It 
takes  time  for  the  people  to  become  permeated  with  a  new 
idea.  Any  new  proposal,  therefore,  should  be  thoroughly 
discussed;  then,  if  possible,  adapted  more  or  less  piecemeal, 
so  that  each  part  may  be  tested  and  suited  to  the  needs  of 
the  country.  And  what  is  true  regarding  other  forms  of 
political  institutions  is  likewise  true  with  reference  to  a 
representative  system.  The  presumption  is  that  the  sys- 
tem in  existence  is  fairly  well  suited  to  the  needs  of  the 
people.  Any  improvement  that  comes  must  probably  come 
slowly. 


VI 

LEGISLATION 

In  primitive  states  custom  has  the  force  of  law.  The 
chiefs  of  the  tribes  were  the  heads  of  the  primitive  states, 
acting  both  as  members  of  the  executive  body  or  as  chief 
executive  and  as  legislators ;  they  enforced  the  customs  as 
though  they  were  laws.  Ordinarily  they  spoke  of  the 
customs  as  commands  of  the  gods  or  as  laws  handed  down 
from  time  immemorial,  and  in  consequence  as  laws  which 
must  be  enforced.  Many  instances  are  to  be  found  of 
customs  enforced  with  penalties  more  severe  and  rigid  than 
those  imposed  for  crimes  in  a  higher  stage  of  civilization. 
The  custom  of  taboo  in  the  islands  of  Oceanica  in  the 
earlier  days  were  so  rigid  that  if  a  priest  declared  an  article 
taboo,  no  one  could  touch  it  under  the  death  penalty. 
They  simply  made  a  religious  observance  out  of  that 
custom.  Likewise  the  custom  of  the  vendetta,  and  that 
of  the  ordeal  to  determine  whether  a  person  was  crimi- 
nal or  not,  had  come  down  from  time  immemorial. 
Doubtless  in  the  first  instance  it  was  thought  that  the  gods 
would  decide  what  was  right  and  wrong.  It  was  but 
another  step  to  the  ordeal  to  determine  a  person  guilty 
or  not  guilty,  whether  the  ordeal  was  to  cross  a  stream  of 
water  without  drowning,  to  hold  hot  coals  in  the  hand,  to 
walk  on  live  coals,  or  what  not.  The  ordeal  by  combat 
amounted  also  to  quite  the  same  thing.  In  "Ivanhoe," 
for  example,   when  the   knight    templar   fell    before   the 

92 


LEGISLATION  93 

mere  touch  of  the  tottering  Ivanhoe's  lance,  the  victory 
was  clearly  looked  upon  as  the  judgment  of  God. 

But,  although  we  speak  of  customs  in  the  earlier  days 
having  the  force  of  laws,  we  ought  not  to  imagine  that  the 
situation  at  the  present  time  is  materially  different  except 
in  form.  Most  of  our  statutes  that  are  really  fundamental 
in  nature  and  that  deal  primarily  with  the  social  institutions 
which  touch  our  lives  most  closely,  are  simply  the  formulation 
into  a  definite  law  of  an  old-time  custom.  For  example, 
the  marriage  laws  of  most  countries  are  simply  old-time 
customs  definitely  formulated,  but  the  customs  go  far 
beyond  the  mere  letter  of  the  law  and  include  the  marriage 
ceremony  as  well.  Most  brides  probably  do  not  think  of 
the  ring  that  is  put  on  their  finger  as  a  symbol  of  the  sub- 
ordination of  the  bride  to  her  husband,  but  that  of  course 
is  the  case. 

Frequently,  too,  these  customs  live  when  the  reasons 
for  them  are  entirely  forgotten.  With  the  habits  of 
thought  and  life  tending  continually  toward  change,  our 
laws  thus  frequently  become  out  of  place.  But  in  most 
minor  matters  probably  the  essential  thing  is  that  we 
all  agree  upon  the  law  rather  than  that  the  law  itself  be 
fixed  in  any  determined  way.  For  example,  the  custom 
of  the  road  in  the  United  States  is  to  turn  to  the  right  when 
meeting  another  team  or  vehicle,  and  in  most  of  our  states 
that  has  been  made  a  law.  In  Great  Britain  and  else- 
where on  the  Continent  of  Europe  the  custom  has  been  to 
turn  to  the  left,  and  in  consequence  that  is  the  law.  Pre- 
sumably that  custom  arose  from  the  belief  that  it  is  better 
to  turn  to  the  left  than  to  the  right  because  the  driver  can 
guard  his  wheels  better  if  he  is  seated  on  the  side  nearest 
the  approaching  vehicle,  and  for  some  reason,  unknown  to 


94  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

me,  the  driver  usually  sits  on  the  off,  the  right-hand  side. 
But  in  some  way  the  custom  started  in  the  United  States 
of  turning  to  the  right,  and  we  have  kept  to  the  right  until 
the  law  has  compelled  it.  We  can  see  what  a  gain  comes 
from  our  all  following  the  same  custom. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  sometimes  find  that  public  senti- 
ment has  crystallized  against  some  existing  custom  that 
ought  to  be  changed,  and  then  in  many  instances  a  law  is 
passed  to  change  the  custom.  Probably  the  most  striking 
illustration  of  this  principle  of  late  years  in  the  United 
States  is  found  in  the  movement  toward  ballot  reform. 
There  had  been  so  much  corruption  under  the  old  system 
of  voting  that  the  public  became  thoroughly  convinced  that 
reform  must  come,  and  the  various  legislators  set  to  work 
to  devise  the  means.  When  one  reasonably  good  plan  had 
been  found,  that  was  rapidly  adopted  by  the  states  one 
after  the  other,  until  within  a  period  of  a  very  few  years 
the  customs  of  elections  have  been  changed  radically  by 
the  new  laws.  But  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  new 
law  was  brought  into  existence  simply  because  there  had 
been  a  gradual  change  in  public  opinion,  the  will  of  the 
people  determining  that  they  would  stop  vote  buying. 
Generally  speaking,  however,  the  laws  are  the  outgrowth  of 
custom  rather  than  the  creators  of  custom.  We  need  not 
expect  that  our  legislation  to-day  much  more  than  that 
of  early  days  can  go  far  beyond  the  ordinary  wishes  of  the 
people,  though  it  may  go  beyond  the  wishes  of  compara- 
tively large  numbers. 

On  matters  of  slight  consequence,  we  can  hardly  say  that 
the  people  have  any  very  definite  opinion.  Unless  their 
attention  has  been  attracted,  they  take  no  interest  in  the 
making  of  the  law.     In  matters  of  fundamental  importance, 


LEGISLATION  95 

however,  when  the  people  are  excited  and  are  inclined  to 
question,  the  lawmakers  cannot  venture  to  go  far  beyond 
what  the  people  have  determined  is  wise.  The  reputation 
of  being  radical  is  not  a  good  one  for  a  member  of  the 
legislature.  In  consequence,  he  is  ordinarily  careful  not 
to  go  beyond  the  wishes  of  the  people  as  they  are  usually 
expressed. 

Again,  if  the  people  become  very  much  aroused  on  any 
question  and  are  likely  to  urge  some  extreme  action,  the 
legislators  are  likely  to  follow,  not  to  lead.  We  see  that 
this  practically  must  be  the  case.  The  members  of  legis- 
latures are  not  willing  to  take  the  risk  of  saying  to  their 
people  that  it  is  good  policy  for  the  state  as  a  whole  to 
abandon  its  views  and  to  follow  the  advice  of  legislators. 
They  are  much  more  likely  to  promise  that  they  will  abide 
by  the  dictates  of  public  opinion.  Moreover,  this  is,  gen- 
erally speaking,  wise,  aside  from  the  question  of  reelection. 
It  is  not  a  good  thing  for  the  state  to  have  a  new  law  put 
upon  the  statute  books  that  will  not  be  well  enforced. 
Such  non-enforcement  tends  to  inculcate  disrespect  for  the 
law,  an  extremely  evil  thing,  though  often  found  in  many 
of  our  states. 

Take  as  an  illustration  the  common  and  striking  one  of 
the  prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  in  communities  where 
the  people,  speaking  generally,  are  opposed  to  it.  We  need 
not  here  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  policy 
of  prohibition.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  with  a  large 
majority  of  the  population  favoring  such  a  law,  it  can  be 
reasonably  enforced  and  the  liquor  traffic  regulated.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  communities  with  opinions  strongly 
fixed  against  the  law,  it  cannot  be  enforced.  I  recall  well 
a  visit  paid  some  years  ago  to  the  city  of  Topeka  with  the 


96  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

prohibition  law  in  force  in  that  city.  In  the  best  hotel  in 
the  place  it  was  well  understood  that  any  guest  might  obtain 
intoxicating  liquors  for  consumption  if  he  would  order 
them  sent  to  his  room.  Whether  the  principle  be  right  or 
wrong,  with  the  sentiment  of  the  people  opposed  a  law  will 
not  be  well  enforced. 

Most  legislatures  are  wise  in  that  they  will  not  make 
too  radical  changes  in  the  law.  The  people  ordinarily 
are  slow  in  making  changes,  and  it  is  wise  to  act  slowly. 
It  may  well  be  best  to  make  a  careful  investigation  first 
before  assuming  that  a  custom  found  obnoxious  to  many 
is  really  bad  enough  to  demand  a  change. 

Many  of  our  reformers  become  impatient,  when  a  mem- 
ber of  the  legislature  hesitates  and  says:  "We  can't  do 
that  now;  the  people  won't  stand  for  it;  we  must  take 
one  step  at  a  time;  in  half-a-dozen  years  perhaps  we 
can  get  the  measure  through."  We  are  likely  to  feel 
that  he  is  not  sincere,  but  is  simply  seeking  a  way  to  delay 
legislation  and  hinder  us  and  block  what  we  want,  and 
that  he  is  too  cowardly  to  tell  the  people  what  they  ought 
to  have.  In  some  instances,  this  is  perhaps  true,  but,  gen- 
erally speaking,  when  members  of  the  legislature  say,  "You 
had  better  take  part  of  that  measure  and  wait  for  the  rest 
until  the  people  have  grown  up  to  it,"  they  are  really 
speaking  wisely.  They  know  what  the  people  will  stand, 
and  if  we  attempt  to  act  too  rapidly,  the  people  will  see 
to  it  that  the  laws  are  not  properly  enforced. 

The  question  of  the  restriction  of  child  labor  will  serve 
as  a  good  illustration  of  the  principle.  In  the  northern 
states  generally,  the  conditions  are  such  that  the  child 
labor  laws  advocated  are  right  and  wise.  It  is  not 
necessary  in  most  cases  in  the  northern  states  to  wait 


LEGISLATION  97 

until  an  investigation  can  be  made  regarding  the  con- 
ditions of  child  labor.  We  may  properly  go  ahead  and 
enact  the  laws  that  have  been  proposed,  and  be  rea- 
sonably sure  that  they  are  wise  and  right.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  certain  sections  of  our  country,  especially  in  the 
South,  a  great  deal  of  child  labor  has  been  found  in  some 
of  the  manufacturing  establishments.  In  these  localities 
the  social  conditions  are  such  that  the  manufacturers  say 
sincerely  that  they  believe  it  better  for  the  children  to 
work  part  time  in  the  factories  rather  than  be  allowed  to 
run  the  streets;  and  since  there  is  no  system  of  compul- 
sory education,  if  they  were  not  in  the  factories,  they 
would  be  on  the  streets.  "As  soon  as  we  can  get  a  system 
of  compulsory  education,"  they  say,  "we  shall  be  ready 
to  adopt  the  standard  found  in  most  northern  states." 
With  this  difference  of  opinion  in  the  country  at  large, 
Congress  doubtless  took  a  wise  position  in  declaring  that 
it  would  first  investigate  and  learn  the  conditions  within 
the  different  states  before  it  adopted  radical  legislation 
of  any  kind.  It  is  doubtless  wise  in  legislative  matters 
to  go  slowly,  learn  as  best  you  can  the  conditions,  see  to 
it  that  when  the  conditions  are  made  known  public  senti- 
ment has  so  crystallized  that  the  laws  can  be  enforced, 
then  pass  the  proper  laws. 

Compromise  on  the  part  of  the  law-making  body  is  often 
the  only  wise  policy  in  the  interest  of  the  public.  It  is 
important  to  see  clearly  the  general  line  of  the  policy  to 
be  adopted,  then  to  choose  the  time  and  place  and  means 
so  as  to  go  ahead  as  rapidly  as  possible  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, but  not  so  rapidly  that  more  harm  will  come  from 
our  efforts  than  good.  Many  good  people  who  are  very 
eager  to  have  society  improve,   take  the  position  that 


98  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

compromise  on  many  questions  is  sin;  that  you  must  not 
compromise  with  sin;    that  anything  but  absolute  pro- 
hibition of  the  evil  is  wrong.     For  example,  if  the  ques- 
tion should  come  up  of  licensing   gambling-houses,   they 
would  say,  "You  must  not  do  that;   that  is  a  recognition 
by  the  state  of  sin,  and  any  such  recognition  is  in  itself 
sinning."    This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  in  detail  the 
question  for  or  against  the  licensing  of  gambling-houses, 
but   we   should   determine   what   the   right   principle   is. 
What  is  our  purpose  with  reference  to  gambling  ?     Is  it 
not  to  suppress  it  as  rapidly  as  we  can?    Now  if  we  should 
find  that  in  any  community  we  could  presumably  check 
gambling    better    by    recognizing    the    evil,    imposing   a 
high  restrictive  tax,  putting  the  gambling  establishments 
absolutely  under  the   control   of  the   public   authorities, 
and   seeing   that   they   follow   up   and    check    the    evil 
rigidly  under  the  law,  would  not  that  in  all  probability 
accomplish  more  for  the  good  of  the  community  than 
simply  to  forbid  gambling,  refuse  to  recognize  it  under 
the  law,  and  with  public  opinion  against  us  practically 
open  the  doors  to  any  establishment  that  any  one  cares  to 
set   up  ?     In   our  attempts  to  improve  society  we  should 
always  keep  clearly  in  mind  the  end,  and  with  our  eyes 
wide  open  use  means  that  will  accomplish  that  end  and 
not  those  that,  under  the  circumstances,  will  be  useless. 
Another    illustration.     Many    people    believe    in    free 
trade.     It  would  be  poor  policy  for  such  people  to  refuse 
to  make  any  compromise  on  the  tariff  rather  than  to  accept 
anything  short  of  absolute  free  trade.     In  all  of  our  efforts 
to  improve  society  we  may  very  properly  employ  compro- 
mise on  methods  of  securing  our  end,  even  though  we  should 
be  unwilling  to  compromise  on  the  principle.     From  the 


LEGISLATION  99 

point  of  view  of  the  good  of  the  state  we  must  recognize 
that  it  is  sometimes  unwise  to  attack  too  directly  prevailing 
human  vices.     The  attack  must  often  be  made  indirectly. 

Most  of  us  will  remember  the  delightful  account  that 
Benjamin  Franklin  gives  in  his  "Autobiography"  of  his 
attempt  to  acquire  perfect  virtue.  You  will  recall  that  he 
wrote  down  in  a  systematic  way  a  catalogue  of  the  leading 
virtues.  Then  he  divided  them  up  and  decided  that 
one  week  he  would  practise  absolutely  one  of  the  virtues, 
paying,  relatively  speaking,  little  attention  to  the  others ; 
the  next  he  would  practise  absolutely  a  second;  the  week 
following,  a  third;  and  so  on  through  the  list.  Then  he 
would  begin  again  and  follow  the  same  plan  through.  He 
thought  that  by  absolutely  living  one  virtue  a  week  at  a 
time  and  then  maintaining  each  one  as  much  as  possible 
the  rest  of  the  time,  and  during  the  same  period  stopping 
the  corresponding  vice,  he  would  be  able  in  the  long  run  to 
acquire  almost  perfect  virtue.  We  should  all  agree,  I 
suppose,  that  before  the  end  of  his  days,  Franklin  had 
overcome  a  good  many  of  his  vices  and  had  succeeded  in 
establishing  a  good  many  virtues. 

I  am  not  entirely  sure  of  the  soundness  of  Franklin's 
principle  as  regards  our  personal  vices,  but  I  am  sure  that 
it  is  not  wise  to  attack  by  legislation  too  directly  all  pre- 
vailing human  vices  at  once.  We  should  consider  them 
separately,  note  the  conditions,  and  work  out  for  each  the 
best  remedy  practicable  under  the  prevailing  conditions. 
The  chief  aim,  of  course,  in  all  restrictive  legislation  of  this 
nature  is  to  help  men  get  control  of  themselves.  There  is  no 
reformation  of  any  man  possible  short  of  his  own  self-con- 
trol. By  legislation  we  can  sometimes  help  a  man  to  get 
control  of   himself   by  removing  temptations   from   him; 


100  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

but  when  we  remove  temptations,  let  us  see  to  it  that 
we  do  not  put  worse  temptations  in  his  way,  as  we  some- 
times do. 

There  are  many  differences  of  opinion  regarding  the 
question  of  the  canteen  in  the  army,  and  this  furnishes 
perhaps  as  good  an  illustration  of  the  principle  mentioned 
as  is  possible.  A  very  large  majority  of  the  officers  in  our 
army  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  canteen  is  a  good  rather 
than  an  evil.  Our  private  soldiers,  it  will  be  remembered, 
brave  and  excellent  as  they  are,  are  ordinarily  young  men 
of  no  great  experience  in  life,  often  men  who  have  not 
succeeded  well  in  their  life-work,  and  men  not  too  rigid  in 
their  views  of  morality.  Usually  they  have  been  •  more 
or  less  accustomed  to  smoking,  to  drinking  beer  or  stronger 
liquors,  and  often  to  perhaps  even  more  injurious  things 
than  these  could  be.  The  officers  feel  that  if  they  can 
have  a  room  under  the  general  supervision  of  the  army 
post,  where  the  private  soldier  can  get  tobacco,  cigars, 
and  beer,  but  no  stronger  liquor,  and  in  which  he  can  play 
games,  but  not  gamble,  he  will  be  furnished  a  reasonable 
amount  of,  relatively  speaking,  innocent  recreation,  which 
will  keep  him  away  from  much  more  serious  temptations. 

I  have  had  cases  given  me  of  young  men  ruined  by  the 
drink  habit  "learned  at  the  canteen."  AVithout  the  can- 
teen other  opportunities  are  at  hand  under  worse  sur- 
roundings, and  the  habit  would  probably  have  been 
acquired  at  any  rate,  together  with  worse  ones.  Many 
people  who  are  opposed  to  the  canteen  at  the  army  posts 
say  that  the  army  officers  are  prejudiced;  that  most  of 
them  drink  themselves.  I  have  talked  with  many  army 
officers  and  have  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  some  of  the 
life  at  army  posts.     So  far  as  I  know,  many  of  the  army 


LEGISLATION  101 

officers  with  whom  I  am  acquainted  do  drink  an  occasional 
glass  of  wine;  I  know  of  none  who  drink  to  excess.  One 
experienced  army  officer,  who  had  served  for  a  considerable 
time  in  the  Philippines,  in  speaking  of  this  question,  said  : 
"The  people  who  advocate  the  abolition  of  the  canteen 
do  not  know  what  they  are  talking  about.  They  think 
that  I  and  other  people  in  my  position  are  prejudiced. 
It  may  be  that  we  are,  but  they  surely  have  no  more  in- 
formation on  this  subject  than  I  have.  Moreover,  they 
cannot  have  the  same  interest  in  the  question.  For  many 
years  my  reputation,  the  success  of  the  command  under 
me,  often  my  life,  have  depended  upon  my  keeping  my  men 
sober  and  efficient  for  their  work.  Now  I  know  from 
experience  that  if  I  cannot  have  at  the  post  a  canteen, 
where  the  men  under  my  service  will  have  some  of  the 
enjoyments  to  which  they  were  accustomed  before  they 
enlisted,  they  will  simply  go  outside  the  army  post  into 
much  worse  places  and  in  much  worse  company,  where 
they  will  indulge  in  habits  that  are  far  more  injurious  than 
taking  a  glass  of  beer.  They  will  make  themselves  much 
less  efficient  for  their  work  as  soldiers  than  if  they  stayed 
in  the  army  post  and  used  the  canteen  under  supervision. 
I  think  that  people  ought  to  realize  that  we,  whose  reputa- 
tions, often  whose  lives,  are  at  stake  in  getting  the  best 
results  from  our  soldiers,  are  the  ones  who  can  best  judge 
such  a  question."  May  we  not  keep  then  this  principle 
of  legislation  well  in  mind,  that  if  we  wish  to  keep  our 
soldiers  sober,  to  hold  them  efficient  for  their  work  as 
soldiers,  we  should  be  ready  to  take  the  method  to  accom- 
plish that  result  that,  on  the  whole,  is  most  likely  to 
reach  it. 
Generally  speaking,   in    most    affairs    of   life,    we    are 


102  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

willing  to  take  the  testimony  of  experts.  Frequently 
those  experts  have  their  personal  opinions  also  that  influ- 
ence their  judgment;  but  they  surely  are  entitled  to  a 
more  careful  hearing  than  those  people  who  have  not 
been  trained.  It  may  perhaps  be  that  in  this  instance, 
as  in  many  others  which  might  be  equally  well  taken  as 
illustrations,  it  is  unwise  to  attack  the  vice  too  directly 
by  absolute  prohibition  which  under  the  circumstances 
cannot  be  enforced. 

We  need  in  our  country  also  to  consider  whether  legisla- 
tion is  national,  state,  or  local  in  scope,  and  to  act  accord- 
ingly. If  legislation  touches  the  individual  directly  in 
practically  every  locality,  it  is  probable  that  a  local  option 
law  will  work  to  the  best  advantage,  each  locality  deciding 
for  itself  the  form  of  law  suited  to  its  conditions.  So 
much  depends  upon  public  sentiment  in  any  community 
that  it  is  practically  impossible  to  secure  the  enforcement 
of  the  law  unless  public  sentiment  is  back  of  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  question  is  one  which  touches 
the  country  as  a  whole,  such,  for  example,  as  that  of  the 
railroads  or  of  great  industrial  corporations  engaged  in 
business  which  covers  the  United  States  or  even  possibly 
foreign  countries,  no  one  state  is  in  a  position  to  control. 
Clearly,  under  those  circumstances,  federal  legislation  is 
desirable. 

Legislative  detail  in  very  many  instances  may  be  left 
to  voluntary  associations,  the  state  or  federal  law  laying 
down  simply  general  principles.  We  have  ordinarily  a 
general  corporation  law  and  each  corporation  is  given  the 
privilege  of  making  its  own  by-laws.  Likewise  we  may 
make  laws  for  the  organization  of  charitable  associations 
or  those  which  direct  in  general  terms  the  care  of  the  poor, 


LEGISLATION  103 

the  unfortunate,  the  insane;  and  yet  we  may  give  the 
power  of  visitation  and  complaint  and  possibly  even  at 
times  the  power  of  direction  to  voluntary  associations. 

Frequently  the  effect  is  much  better  if  the  laws  are  general 
in  terms  and  if  considerable  discretion  is  left  to  the 
executive  or  to  some  other  competent  authority  to  draft 
specific  rules  for  putting  the  laws  into  effect.  For  in- 
stance, a  general  law  might  be  passed  to  apply  to  every 
county  of  a  great  state  whenever  an  executive  issues 
a  decree  declaring  that  it  shall  take  effect  in  a  specific 
county.  This  is  not  exactly  the  same  as  local  option, 
the  discretion  being  left  to  the  executive.  Along  this  line 
has  been  federal  legislation  giving  to  the  President  the  power 
of  making  certain  modifications  in  the  laws  for  foreign 
states  with  which  the  government  has  made  reciprocity 
treaties.  Of  a  similar  nature  is  a  general  road  improve- 
ment law  in  the  state  of  New  York,  providing  that  it  shall 
take  effect  in  each  county,  town,  or  locality  at  the  will  of 
local  officials  or  after  a  decision  made  by  some  state  official. 
The  chief  point  to  be  kept  in  mind  in  all  such  matters  is 
to  suit  the  laws  to  the  nature  of  the  subject  in  such  a  way 
that  public  opinion  will  support  the  enforcement  of  the 
law. 

The  question  is  at  times  asked  whether  no  exception 
should  be  made,  whether  in  a  community  of  thieves,  the 
laws  forbidding  theft  should  be  repealed.  In  such  a  com- 
munity the  laws  probably  would  be  repealed,  or  we  should 
have  community  of  goods,  or  else  among  themselves  the 
thieves  would  rigidly  enforce  the  law.  The  principle  is 
certainly  sound. 

A  chief  danger  in  a  democratic  country  like  the  United 
States  is   over-legislation.     Our  legislators   are  naturally 


104  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

ambitious  to  make  a  record  before  their  constituents. 
Many  individuals,  corporations,  or  localities  desire  certain 
special  privileges  which  may  appear  to  be  in  their  own 
interest  but  which  may  well  be  opposed  to  the  general 
interest.  There  seems  to  be  difficulty  in  placing  a  suffi- 
cient check  upon  the  efforts  of  interested  parties.  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  we  need  to  keep  in  mind  the  danger 
of  general  regulations,  which  tend  to  check  individual 
initiative.  Possibly  nowhere  else  in  the  world,  with  the 
exception  of  some  of  the  British  colonies,  are  the 
conditions  so  favorable  for  securing  individual  initiative, 
for  encouraging  independent  thinking  and  action,  as  in 
the  United  States.  Indeed  this  may  be  looked  upon 
as  one  of  the  chief  excellencies,  if  not  even  the  chief  ex- 
cellence of  our  political  system.  We  need,  therefore,  to 
be  extremely  cautious  about  making  laws  which  may 
restrict  individual  activity  further  than  is  necessary  to 
protect  the  general  public.  State  control  of  evil  is  good. 
We  need  to  be  cautious  not  to  control  so  as  to  prevent  the 
good  or  to  take  away  the  opportunities  for  the  develop- 
ment of  individual  initiative. 

This  raises  indirectly  the  question  of  direct  legislation 
by  the  people,  —  in  other  words,  the  referendum  and  the 
initiative,  —  an  extremely  important  matter  in  connection 
with  legislation.  In  Switzerland,  both  in  the  federal 
government  and  in  the  cantons,  this  method  of  legislation 
exists.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  voters  in  most  of  the 
cantons  whenever  a  bill  has  been  passed  by  the  cantonal 
legislature,  to  petition  that  the  bill  be  submitted  to  the 
people  for  their  approval  before  it  becomes  a  law.  Some 
cantons  go  even  so  far  as  to  require  every  general  law  to 
be  submitted  to  the  people  before  it  becomes  effective. 


LEGISLATION  105 

In  some  of  the  cantons,  if  the  legislative  body  is  slow  in 
taking  up  a  subject,  the  people  may  themselves  take  the 
initiative,  petitioning  the  legislature  to  make  the  matter 
a  subject  of  legislation,  or  even,  if  they  prefer,  requesting 
the  legislature  to  consider  a  specific  bill  submitted.  The 
legislature  must  then  take  up  the  subject  or  the  bill, 
discuss  it,  and  then  refer  it  back  to  the  people  with  their 
recommendations  for  final  action  and  decision.  We  thus 
have  the  people,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  legislating  for 
themselves. 

The  question  is  one  of  the  gravest  importance  and  by 
no  means  simple.  In  discussing  the  qualifications  for 
suffrage,  likewise  in  the  consideration  of  the  principles  of 
representation,  it  has  been  intimated  that  many  subjects 
are  so  complicated  that  the  average  voter  cannot  be  ex- 
pected to  express  an  intelligent  opinion  regarding  them. 
It  was  said  that  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  multiplication 
of  ignorance  can  give  wisdom,  and  that  the  statement  often 
made  by  politicians  who  wish  to  secure  votes,  that  all  the 
people  are  wiser  than  part  of  the  people  is  an  unsound 
principle. 

In  one  sense,  of  course,  the  principle  as  stated  is  true. 
If  every  individual  in  the  community  is  taken,  naturally 
there  will  be  found  among  them  men  of  experience  who 
have  made  a  special  study  of  the  questions  to  be  answered, 
and  by  counting  these  and  getting  from  them  an  opinion,  a 
larger  amount  of  information  on  any  one  subject  can  be 
secured  than  any  one  individual  will  possess.  Ordinarily, 
however,  that  is  not  what  is  meant.  The  statement  of  the 
politician  usually  means  that  the  majority  of  the  people, 
experts  and  ignorant,  taken  together  as  a  voting  mass,  are 
more  likely  to  have  a  sound  judgment  on  any  specific 


106  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

question  than  a  comparatively  small  body  of  men,  even 
though  they  be  experts.  That  principle  is  unsound.  A 
mere  accumulation  of  the  opinions  of  uninformed  people 
on  a  set  question  will  not  give  enlightenment.  That  must 
come  from  people  who  have  studied  and  thought  the 
question  through  and  who  know  how  to  handle  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  said  that  in  very  many 
instances  the  best  law  for  any  community  is  the  law  which 
the  people  want.  Emphasis  has  been  placed  upon  the 
desirability  of  having  public  opinion  back  of  any  law. 
If,  therefore,  there  were  two  methods  of  accomplishing  the 
same  result,  one  with  the  great  mass  of  the  people  back  of 
it,  the  other,  though  possibly  under  many  circumstances 
theoretically  better  but  without  the  support  of  public 
opinion,  every  thoughtful  student  of  politics  would  say  that 
the  method  supported  by  public  opinion  should  be  chosen. 
We  need,  then,  to  emphasize  both  sides  of  this  question. 
The  best  form  of  law  is  that  in  accordance  with  the  opinion 
of  experts  and  which  has  the  support  of  public  opinion. 

Direct  legislation  has  one  decided  advantage.  It  is 
educative  in  its  tendency.  Through  the  extended  discus- 
sion of  any  subject  by  the  people,  they  will  secure  great 
benefit,  even  though  they  do  not  get  the  best  answers.  If 
the  question  happens  to  be  a  complicated  one,  there  will  be 
many  opinions,  but  even  the  attempt  to  think  it  through  is 
helpful.  For  example,  in  the  federal  campaigns  of  1896  and 
1900,  although  a  very  great  majority  of  the  voters  and  very 
many  of  the  public  speakers  were  not  competent  to  express 
sound  opinions  on  the  money  question,  the  discussion 
nevertheless  proved  educative  to  a  very  high  degree,  even 
though  the  question,  as  has  been  seen,  must  have  its  ulti- 
mate settlement,  if  at  all,  through  a  careful  study  by 


LEGISLATION  107 

experts  and  the  following  of  their  opinions  by  our  legisla- 
tive bodies. 

Moreover,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  people 
soon  tire  of  the  discussion  of  complicated  questions.  The 
experience  of  Switzerland  shows  that  if  not  more  than  two 
or  three  questions  are  submitted  to  the  people  each  year, 
they  will  study  the  questions  fairly  well  and  come  out  in 
considerable  numbers  to  cast  their  votes.  If  they  have 
several  questions  submitted,  they  will  relatively  soon  tire, 
so  that  often  not  more  than  25  per  cent  of  the  voters 
cast  their  ballots  on  some  of  the  questions  submitted,  much 
depending,  too,  upon  the  subject.  Under  those  circum- 
stances, the  educative  advantage  suggested  is  largely  lost. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  referendum  has  a  strong 
influence  in  checking  corruption.  The  people  will  almost 
invariably  defeat  any  bill  that  it  is  thought  has  corrupt 
influence  back  of  it.  In  Switzerland,  when  the  question 
of  the  purchase  of  railways  by  the  federal  government  was 
under  discussion,  a  rumor,  presumably  baseless,  was  cir- 
culated that  high  officials  were  personally  interested  in 
the  purchase.  Even  though  after  careful  investigation  it 
seemed  clear  that  the  charge  was  unfounded,  the  matter 
was  nevertheless  taken  up  by  the  people  by  petition  and 
then  the  purchase  voted  down  by  an  overwhelming  majority 
and  the  whole  question  was  delayed  for  several  years. 
It  will  doubtless  generally  be  found  that  the  people  have 
the  interest  of  the  state  at  heart.  They  want  the  right 
thing,  and  the  system  of  the  referendum  is  almost  certain 
to  check  corruption. 

But  if  we  are  to  submit  to  the  people  complicated  ques- 
tions, such  as  the  tariff,  banking  reform,  monetary  reform, 
etc.,  we  cannot  expect  them  to  vote  intelligently.     It  is 


108  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

very  much  more  difficult  to  understand  such  a  question 
than  to  select  an  attorney  or  an  advocate  or  a  representa- 
tive to  act  for  you.  The  representative  method,  under 
such  circumstances,  will  probably  secure  the  best  laws. 

The  referendum,  moreover,  experience  has  shown,  is 
subject  to  another  abuse.  If,  for  example,  on  a  petition 
of  5  or  10  per  cent  of  the  voters,  any  question  may  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people,  we  shall  find  a  small  party  of  extre- 
mists who  may  perhaps  control  the  percentage  of  voters 
necessary  to  sign  the  petition,  starting  propaganda  with  no 
hope  of  getting  their  measure  passed.  They  may,  how- 
ever, thus  have  the  question  discussed  by  the  legislature 
and  voted  upon  by  the  people  at  the  public  expense.  This 
has  been  done  repeatedly  in  Switzerland  with  practically 
no  hope  of  any  immediate  success,  but  with  the  expectation 
merely  of  making  propaganda  for  a  small  party  at  the 
public  expense. 

It  seems  clear  that  a  general  referendum  that  will  sub- 
mit all  bills  to  the  people  would  not  be  wise  in  most  coun- 
tries, —  certainly  not  in  so  large  a  country  as  the  United 
States.  On  the  other  hand,  in  practically  all  democratic 
governments,  little  harm  could  come  from  an  optional 
referendum  under  which  the  people  have  a  right  to  insist 
that  the  bill  passed  by  the  legislature  be  referred  to  them 
before  it  goes  into  effect,  provided  a  considerable  percent- 
age, say  15  per  cent  or  20  per  cent  of  the  voters,  petition 
for  its  submission.  We  might  then  be  sure  that  a  con- 
siderable proportion  of  the  people  were  back  of  any  such 
petition  and  that  the  public  interest  was  really  seriously 
aroused  before  the  signatures  for  so  extensive  a  petition 
could  be  secured.  Under  those  circumstances,  we  should 
probably  get  more  good  than  harm  from  the  measure. 


LEGISLATION  109 

The  fundamental  principles  of  legislation  may  perhaps 
be  summed  up  about  as  follows:  The  laws  we  make,  the 
methods  of  legislation  employed,  must  be  for  the  purpose 
of  improving  society,  must  avoid  extravagance,  and  must  be 
adapted  to  the  people  and  to  the  conditions  and  the  time 
under  consideration;  otherwise  they  are  likely  to  be  both 
unwise  and  unjust. 


VII 

ADMINISTRATION 

With  so  independent  personalities  as  the  present  chief 
executives  of  the  city  of  New  York,  the  state  of  New  York, 
and  the  United  States  (1908),  one  needs  to  be  extremely 
cautious  in  speaking  of  the  work  of  the  chief  executive. 
Although  he  may  have  in  mind  any  chief  executive,  he  is 
likely  to  be  interpreted  as  praising  or  attacking  one  of  the 
men  now  in  office.  You  are  probably  familiar  with  Philip 
Gilbert  Hamerton's  discussion  of  the  qualities  of  women 
in  his  book  on  Intellectual  Life,  and  you  will  recall  that  in 
his  judgment,  if  in  conversation  with  a  woman  you  speak 
of  any  characteristic  of  women  in  general,  she  is  almost 
certain  to  take  your  remark  as  a  personal  matter.  The 
newspaper  writers  in  New  York  seem  to  have  the  same 
habit  as  regards  any  remark  made  of  the  executive.  What- 
ever, therefore,  may  be  said  in  this  chapter,  will  have  no 
reference  whatever  to  any  individual  unless  his  name  is 
mentioned. 

The  chief  executive  in  all  communities  has,  and  must 
have,  a  most  direct  and  positive  influence  upon  public 
opinion  by  virtue  of  his  position,  far  more  influence  than 
a  member  of  the  legislature,  or  one  of  the  judicial  body. 
The  chief  executive  stands  as  the  head  of  the  army  and  of 
the  navy.  When  he  travels  he  usually  goes  in  state, 
accompanied  by  a  suite  of  followers.  Particularly  in 
Europe  and  in  Oriental  countries  the  executive  consciously 

no 


ADMINISTRATION  111 

makes  an  effort  to  capture  the  public  imagination,  both  by 
the  expensiveness  of  his  modes  of  living  and  travel  and  by 
the  court  etiquette.  Until  within  late  years  in  most  coun- 
tries, and  even  now  in  many  countries  less  advanced  in 
civilization  than  are  most  of  the  countries  of  Europe  and 
the  United  States,  the  belief  in  the  divine  right  of  kings 
or  of  the  chief  executives  still  exists.  The  ruler  often  stands 
not  merely  as  the  chosen  representative  of  the  country, 
but  also  as  a  representative  of  Deity,  —  he  is  the  enforcer 
of  the  will  of  the  gods,  —  so  that  when  he  speaks  his  words 
carry  far  more  weight  than  do  those  of  any  other  man  in 
the  community. 

Furthermore,  he  stands  alone,  —  one  personality  rep- 
resenting the  whole  community.  In  dealing  with  the 
legislature  or  with  groups  of  citizens  at  home,  and  espe- 
cially in  his  contact  with  foreign  countries,  he  stands 
as  one  for  the  nation,  because  the  state  must  act  as  a 
unit  and  under  those  circumstances  he  is  the  only  possible 
representative.  In  this  way  his  position  is  such  that  he 
will  certainly  capture  the  public  imagination  far  more  than 
can  any  legislator  or  any  ordinary  official  who  stands 
merely  as  one  of  hundreds. 

This  position  gives  not  merely  political  but  social 
influence  as  well  and  this  accounts  also  for  much  in  the  way 
of  the  exercise  of  power.  In  our  afternoon  gatherings  at 
the  present  time  large  numbers  of  men  will  be  seen  wearing 
Prince  Albert  coats.  That  simply  means  that  Prince  Albert 
set  the  fashion  several  decades  ago.  Napoleon  the  Third 
set  the  fashion  in  mustaches  widely  copied  in  his  own 
country.  In  Germany  one  has  but  to  note  the  appearance 
of  the  young  men  of  military  proclivities  or  of  social  am- 
bition in  order   to   see  how  influential  is  the   mustache 


112  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

of  the  Emperor  of  Germany.  Even  in  the  United  States, 
the  wife  of  the  President  may  send  a  handkerchief  to  a 
charity  bazar  with  the  certainty  that  it  can  be  sold  for 
many,  many  times  its  value  as  a  handkerchief.  These 
trivial  things  merely  emphasize  over  and  over  again  the 
fact  that  we  are  creatures  of  habit  and  that  unthinkingly 
we  follow  fashion.  This  being  the  case,  we  can  readily  see 
that  the  chief  executive  in  every  country  will  count  for 
far  more  than  any  other  man  so  far  as  mere  opinions  are 
concerned. 

Indirectly,  however,  this  social  influence  of  the  chief 
executive  is  reflected  even  upon  all  others  closely  associated 
with  him,  such  as  members  of  the  Cabinet  in  the  United 
States  or  members  of  the  aristocracy  in  England  and 
Germany.  A  member  of  the  House  of  Commons,  repre- 
senting a  labor  constituency  in  England,  told  me  some 
years  ago  that  the  feeling  of  his  constituents  regarding 
members  of  the  aristocracy  was  often  very  embarrassing. 
It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  votes  of  the  members  of  the 
House  of  Commons  in  England  are  often  thought  to  be 
indirectly  influenced  by  invitations  to  dinner  and  other 
social  attentions  from  members  of  the  aristocracy.  This  in- 
fluence is  likely  to  be  greater  over  members  from  the  coun- 
try districts  and  possibly  over  the  impecunious  members  of 
the  labor  party.  In  consequence,  knowing  that  even  the 
suspicion  of  influence  of  that  kind  could  not  be  treated 
lightly,  he  had  kept  throughout  his  entire  parliamentary 
life,  extending  over  many  years,  every  invitation,  letter,  and 
card  received  from  any  member  of  the  aristocracy  with  a 
record  of  what  had  been  done  with  it ;  so  that  if  the  charge 
were  ever  made  that  he  had  neglected  the  interests  of  his 
constituents  on  account  of  his  desire  for  social  favors,  he 


ADMINISTRATION  113 

would  be  in  a  position  to  show  that  the  charge  was  un- 
founded. 

Within  certain  limits,  of  course,  this  personal  prestige  of 
the  chief  ruler  is  an  excellent  thing.  A  free  country  should 
be  a  country  of  law;  and  it  is  well  that  the  man  who  puts 
the  laws  into  effect  should  stand  in  the  minds  of  the  com- 
munity as  a  representative  of  the  country  as  a  whole,  both 
at  home  and  abroad,  representing  thus  not  merely  his  city, 
his  state,  or  his  nation  as  one,  but  also  the  majesty  and 
sacredness  of  law. 

This  attitude  of  the  people  toward  the  chief  executive 
will  naturally  vary  under  different  circumstances.  In 
times  of  crisis,  especially  in  times  of  war,  when  the  executive 
must  act  and  act  promptly,  his  power  will  normally  increase 
at  the  expense  of  the  legislature  or  of  the  judiciary. 
Probably  we  have  never  had  any  President  of  the  United 
States  less  inclined  to  grasp  after  power  than  was  Lincoln, 
but  no  other  President  has  taken  and  used  the  power  as 
did  he ;  no  other  was  ever  so  much  of  an  autocrat  as  was 
Lincoln  at  the  time  of  the  Civil  War.  The  exigencies  of 
the  time  were  such  that  we  needed  a  prompt  and  firm 
executive.  He  took  that  power  and  justified  himself  for 
it  in  the  minds  of  the  people;  they  stood  back  of  him. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  through  the  legislature  that  the 
executive  must  get  his  revenues,  the  means  by  which  he 
can  accomplish  the  work  put  into  his  hands.  Through  this 
power  of  the  purse  in  ordinary  times  of  peace,  the  legisla- 
ture is  likely  to  get  control  of  the  executive.  Through  this 
means  the  English  House  of  Commons  gradually,  through 
the  course  of  centuries,  has  strengthened  its  hold  over 
the  executive  until  finally,  by  virtue  of  its  power 
practically  to  nominate  and  to  elect  the  Prime  Minister, 


114  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

it  has  placed  the  executive  in  absolute  subordination. 
In  ordinary  times  in  the  United  States  we  may  note 
that  our  House  of  Representatives  and  our  Senate  are 
often  seeking  to  extend  their  authority.  By  virtue 
of  their  function  of  confirming  appointments  to  office  or 
treaties,  the  Senate  has  often  taken  to  itself  not  a  little  of 
the  work  of  the  President.  In  all  countries  we  must  expect 
a  continual  struggle  between  the  executive  and  legislative 
bodies.  Circumstances  at  different  times  will  determine 
which  has  the  advantage  in  the  contest. 

In  every  position  in  all  countries  much  depends  upon  the 
personality  of  the  people  concerned.  This  fact  of  per- 
sonality, as  compared  with  mere  governmental  function, 
can  never  be  overlooked.  The  relations  of  Congress  and 
the  executive  depend  largely  upon  whether  we  have  a 
Jackson,  a  Cleveland,  or  a  Roosevelt  for  President,  or  a 
Monroe,  a  Van  Buren,  a  Johnson.  In  Great  Britain  the 
personality  of  the  Prime  Minister  counts  for  far  more  than 
that  of  a  member  of  the  judicial  body  or  of  any  mere 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons.  And  as  between 
executives,  a  Gladstone  or  a  Disraeli  will  exert  an  influence 
far  beyond  that  of  any  ordinary  Prime  Minister. 

With  these  facts  in  mind  the  executive  of  course  should 
be  scrupulous  and  endeavor  not  to  encroach  upon  the  power 
of  the  legislature  or  to  attempt  to  purchase  or  to  coerce 
the  legislature  by  appointments  or  threats  of  opposition  as 
presidents  and  governors  have  done  at  times  and  doubtless 
are  often  tempted  to  do.  Nevertheless,  the  executive  can- 
not avoid  his  responsibility  in  connection  with  legislation. 

In  the  United  States  he  is  under  obligations,  through  his 
messages,  to  recommend  laws  and  to  do  all  that  may  prop- 
erly and  legitimately  be  done  to  promote  the  legislation 


ADMINISTRATION  115 

that  he  believes  to  be  in  the  interest  of  the  community. 
An  executive  who  is  able  and  who  has  caught  the  popu- 
lar imagination,  may  often  through  his  power  of  rec- 
ommendation determine  legislation,  because  the  people 
through  their  contact  with  their  representatives  will  prac- 
tically compel  action  in  accordance  with  his  advice. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  his  recommendations  to  the 
legislature,  the  executive  is  likely,  within  certain  limits,  to 
seek  for  influence  through  the  advocacy  of  popular  measures. 
If  the  President  wishes  a  reelection,  or  even  if  a  reelection 
is  not  in  mind,  it  is  natural  that  he  should  wish  to  please 
the  people  either  by  advocating  legislation  which  they  wish 
or  by  vetoing  unpopular  measures.  Our  Presidents  and 
other  executives  are  human  like  the  rest  of  us,  subject 
to  the  same  temptations,  and  we  must  expect  that  they  will 
often  unconsciously  yield  to  this  desire.  But  there  is  a 
reason  for  such  action  beyond  the  desire  for  popularity. 
We  have  already  noted  that  it  is  a  positive  injury  to  the 
state  to  have  laws  on  our  statute  books  that  do  not  have  the 
support  of  the  people,  because  under  those  circumstances 
they  cannot  be  well  enforced.  It  is  sometimes  a  sufficient 
reason  for  a  law,  or  at  any  rate  for  a  special  form  of  law, 
that  the  people  desire  it  and  will  support  it.  The  executive, 
therefore,  ought,  in  his  recommendations,  to  keep  the 
popular  will  in  mind. 

Aside  from  that  the  question  is  often  asked  whether  our 
executives,  generally  speaking,  ought  to  enforce  an  un- 
popular law  or  only  those  laws  that  they  think  the  people 
approve.  We  know  that  as  time  goes  on  laws  that  perhaps 
were  desirable  at  the  time  they  were  passed  become  prac- 
tically obsolete.  The  occasion  for  their  enforcement  has 
gone  by;  they  are  forgotten.     Other  laws,  passed  perhaps 


11G  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

in  a  flurry  of  popular  excitement,  being  unwise,  have  be- 
come a  mere  dead  letter.  Under  his  oath  of  office  the  exec- 
utive swears  to  enforce  the  laws.  Does  this  mean  all  laws, 
even  those  repealed  by  neglect  ?  It  is  difficult  to  lay  down 
a  general  principle.  Probably  it  would  be  sufficient  to  say 
that  every  new  law  put  on  the  statute  book,  every  law 
clearly  in  the  popular  mind,  the  executive  should  enforce, 
even  if  he  believes  it  to  be  unwise,  because  in  that  way 
better  than  in  any  other  he  may  secure  its  repeal,  since  there 
is  no  better  method  to  enable  the  people  to  judge  the  effect 
of  laws  than  to  enforce  them.  Laws,  however,  not  in  the 
popular  mind  and  apparently  applying  only  to  conditions 
of  the  past,  might  well  be  allowed  to  rest. 

Much  has  been  said  within  the  last  two  or  three  years  of 
the  so-called  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act.  The  law  was  doubt- 
less passed  in  good  faith,  but  as  the  result  of  the  interpreta- 
tions put  upon  the  law  by  the  courts,  many  people  have 
believed  that  it  is  now  unwise.  With  the  popular  feeling, 
however,  concerning  the  law,  it  would  seem  to  be  wrong 
for  the  executive  not  to  attempt  to  enforce  it.  Whatever 
hardships  may  result,  the  people  and  their  representatives 
should  decide  when  the  time  has  come  for  its  repeal.  The 
educative  influence  on  the  people  of  learning  from  their  own 
mistakes  is  something  that  cannot  be  gained  in  any  other 
way  than  by  experience,  and  this  should  not  be  neglected. 
We  all  know  the  peculiar  advantages  of  education  by  ex- 
perience upon  ourselves  as  individuals.  What  other  people 
tell  us  we  take  on  faith;  we  think  that  perhaps  it  is  good 
for  us,  but  its  direct  educative  influence  on  our  lives  is  not 
half  so  much  as  the  lessons  learned  through  our  own  mis- 
takes. As  it  is  with  us  as  individuals,  so  is  it  with  the 
country  as  a  whole. 


ADMINISTRATION  117 

Our  legislatures  sometimes  sin  in  their  relations  with  the 
executive.  Some  years  ago  I  was  talking  with  a  member 
of  the  Senate  of  New  York  regarding  a  bill  then  pending  in 
the  Assembly.  I  said,  "It  seems  to  me  that  the  bill  is 
unwise  but  it  appears  likely  to  pass  the  Senate."  He 
replied:  "Don't  be  troubled  about  that;  there  is  an 
understanding  between  the  committee  of  the  Senate  and 
that  of  the  Assembly  that  the  bill,  on  account  of  the  per- 
sonal interests  of  the  constituents  of  some  members  of  the 
Assembly,  will  be  recommended  by  the  committee  and 
passed  by  the  Assembly,  but  it  will  be  killed  in  the  Senate 
committee."  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  a  similar  way 
laws  at  times  are  passed  by  legislative  bodies  with  the  ex- 
pectation that  the  executive  will  either  veto  it  and  thus  kill 
it,  or  that  later  it  will  not  be  enforced.  This  is  a  serious 
matter,  a  policy  as  injurious  as  it  is  contemptible.  If  the 
executive  neglects  at  times  to  enforce  an  unpopular  law, 
even  though  it  is  in  the  mind  of  the  people,  how  much  worse, 
how  much  more  contemptible  it  is  for  a  legislative  body  to 
force  such  a  decision  upon  an  executive,  either  because  the 
members  of  the  legislature  are  too  cowardly  to  block  the 
legislation  when  the  responsibility  is  divided,  or  because 
they  wish  to  embarrass  the  executive,  if  he  happens  to  belong 
to  the  opposite  party  or  to  be  unpopular. 

Another  source  of  power  of  the  executive  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  in  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  he,  of  necessity,  to  a 
considerable  degree  must  interpret  them,  a  fact  that  is  often 
overlooked.  Any  law  that  is  at  all  complicated  is  certain 
to  be  more  or  less  ambiguous,  and  usually  there  are  different 
ways  in  which  it  may  be  put  into  effect.  The  chief  execu- 
tive, often  even  subordinate  executives,  are  compelled  to 
make  rule  after  rule  for  the  guidance  of  officials  in  enforcing 


118  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

the  laws  so  that  they  may  know  just  how  and  where  and 
when  action  must  be  taken. 

For  example,  Mr.  Shaw,  when  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
in  his  interpretation  of  the  law  authorizing  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  to  deposit  public  funds  in  the  national 
banks,  so  interpreted  it  as  compared  with  Secretary 
Fairchild  and  other  predecessors,  that  it  was  practically 
the  making  of  a  new  law,  at  any  rate  an  important 
amendment  to  the  old.  In  similar  ways  careful  and  con- 
scientious secretaries  have  changed  and  modified  the 
immigration  laws  and  tariff  laws,  and  invariably  that 
must  be  the  case.  Furthermore,  this  principle  goes  in 
many  ways  beyond  general  interpretation  of  the  law  by  the 
secretary  as  a  mere  individual.  The  secretary  acts  directly 
in  determining  the  banks  in  which  deposits  should  be  placed 
and  the  securities  that  should  be  taken,  but  many  laws 
cannot  be  so  simply  enforced.  In  many  instances  the 
secretary's  general  attitude  will  affect  the  action  of  his 
subordinates.  Naturally  they  wish  to  stand  well  with  him. 
If  the  secretary  says,  or  if  he  is  thought  to  desire  a  liberal 
interpretation  of  the  law,  the  law  will  be  so  interpreted. 
If  a  new  secretary  is  appointed  who  says  or  who  makes 
his  desire  clear  that  the  law  should  be  interpreted  and 
enforced  strictly,  that  will  be  done;  so  that  the  change 
in  secretary  often  changes  the  spirit  of  enforcement  of 
laws.  Beyond  doubt  this  influence  has  been  often  felt 
in  connection  with  the  enforcement  of  the  immigration 
and  tariff  and  tax  laws.  If  a  tariff  act  is  passed  by  the 
Republican  party  and  a  Democratic  executive  comes 
in,  in  making  rules  for  the  interpretation  of  the  law, 
with  perfect  conscientiousness  he  may  very  decidedly 
change  its  spirit.     If  he   changes   its   spirit,   his   subor- 


ADMINISTRATION  119 

dinates  will  follow.  I  recall  a  conversation  with  one  of 
the  assistant  secretaries  of  a  great  department  at  Wash- 
ington regarding  a  ruling  which  was  then  pending.  The 
matter  had  been  referred  to  a  subordinate  for  an  opin- 
ion. The  subordinate  had  hesitated  for  weeks,  making 
no  ruling.  When  the  assistant  secretary  reproached  him 
for  the  delay,  saying  that  he  must  have  a  decision  im- 
mediately, the  man  replied :  "  Well,  I  was  not  quite  sure 
how  I  ought  to  rule  in  this  matter,  because  I  know  that 
the  person  who  brought  this  question  up  is  a  friend  of  yours 
and  I  did  not  wish  to  hurt  his  feelings."  "Neither  I  nor 
the  man  who  brought  this  matter  up  is  a  person  of  that 
type,"  was  the  reply  of  the  assistant  secretary.  "We 
want  a  ruling  that  is  best  for  the  department  and  the 
country  and  we  won't  stand  for  anything  else."  The 
spirit  of  the  subordinate,  nevertheless,  was  that  he  wished 
to  please  his  superior  officer,  and  that  he  was  perfectly 
ready  to  rule  whichever  way  the  superior  wished.  This 
may  be  contemptible,  but  it  is  human. 

On  the  other  hand,  is  it  perhaps  the  duty  of  the  sub- 
ordinate to  say,  if  the  law  admits  of  two  interpretations, 
"  It  is  my  business  to  carry  out  the  interpretation  put  upon 
it  by  my  superior  "  ?  If  the  matter  is  then  carried  into  the 
courts,  a  court  decision  will  settle  it.  The  cases,  however, 
that  come  before  the  courts  are  extremely  rare,  and  too 
much  care  cannot  be  taken  in  securing  executives  who 
will  endeavor  to  put  their  personal  predilections  into  the 
background  in  the  interpretation  of  the  laws  as  they  exist. 
Few  of  our  higher  executives  could  probably  be  charged 
with  considering  at  all  their  personal  interests.  If  they  are 
consciously  warped  at  all  in  their  decisions,  it  is  rather  by 
interests  of  party.     Most  frequently  the  only  influence  that 


120  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

touches  them  is  that  of  prejudice  or  bias  from  their 
training. 

We  should  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  subordinate  will 
follow  the  will  of  his  chief  and  wherever  that  will  can  be 
ascertained,  he  ought  so  to  do.  We  would  not  for  a  mo- 
ment consider  the  propriety  of  a  first  lieutenant  or  a  captain 
of  the  army  venturing  to  modify  the  orders  of  his  general. 
While  the  case  may  seem  less  extreme  in  the  civil  service, 
the  same  general  principle  holds. 

In  many  instances  administrative  governmental  work  is 
like  that  of  a  great  corporation.  The  United  States  Treas- 
ury is  perhaps  the  greatest  bookkeeping  and  disbursing 
establishment  in  the  world.  The  Post-Office  Department 
is  much  like  that  of  a  great  express  company.  The  whole 
administrative  service  is  similar.  Although  in  the  case  of 
most  subordinates  no  question  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
law  comes  up,  it  is  still  a  matter  of  the  gravest  importance 
to  select  the  right  subordinates.  Those  who  stand  by  the 
side  of  the  chief  executive,  as,  for  example,  the  members 
of  the  Cabinet  in  the  United  States,  become  his  advisers. 
They  are  expected  to  help  determine  his  policies,  deciding 
what  is  wise  and  what  unwise  for  the  interests  of  the  country. 
Persons  in  such  positions  should,  of  course,  work  harmo- 
niously as  far  as  possible.  They  should  not  hesitate  to  ex- 
press their  views ;  but  in  carrying  on  their  public  work  they 
should  be  a  unit.  It  is  therefore  desirable  for  the  President 
to  select  members  of  his  Cabinet,  his  chief  advisers,  from 
his  own  political  party.  Although  he  is  the  representative 
of  the  country  as  a  whole,  he  has  been  selected  in  part  as 
the  exponent  of  the  policies  of  his  party.  In  consequence, 
those  officials  who  determine  policies  should  be  those  who, 
in  the  main,  are  in  sympathy  with  his  general  views. 


ADMINISTRATION  121 

For  somewhat  different  reasons,  nevertheless  for  a  suffi- 
cient reason,  it  is  desirable  that  the  members  of  the  Cabinet 
in  the  United  States  that  join  with  the  chief  executive 
in  formulating  policies,  should  represent,  other  things  equal, 
different  sections  of  the  country,  in  order  that  the  chief 
executive  may  be  in  touch  with  conditions  and  sentiments 
throughout  the  land.  This  principle  of  geographic  repre- 
sentation may,  of  course,  be  carried  altogether  too  far,  so 
as  to  bring  into  an  important  position  men  who  are  not  of 
first  rank;  but  other  things  equal,  the  principle  is  wise. 
Presidents  perhaps  lay  undue  emphasis  upon  the  principle, 
especially  in  the  appointment  of  subordinates  who  have 
merely  clerical  work  to  do;  but  for  those  who  formulate 
policies,  it  is  clearly  a  right  principle. 

A  somewhat  similar  question  at  times  arises  regarding 
the  representation  of  different  races  in  advisory  positions. 
In  some  countries  this  principle  is  carried  out.  In  the 
Straits  Settlements,  for  example,  in  the  Governor's  Council, 
there  is  a  representative  of  the  Chinese  race,  because 
he  can  understand  and  explain  better  than  any  one  else 
what  the  Chinese,  who  are  very  important  factors  in  that 
country,  desire.  For  similar  reasons  a  representative 
Malay  will  be  found  there.  It  is,  of  course,  desirable  that 
the  President  of  the  United  States  should  keep  in  touch 
with  public  sentiment  throughout  the  country,  but  for 
other  reasons  that  are  far  more  than  enough  to  counter- 
balance, it  would  probably  not  be  desirable  for  the 
President  to  attempt  to  have  the  different  races  repre- 
sented in  his  Cabinet.  The  policy  of  this  country  is  to 
assimilate  different  elements,  to  ignore  so  far  as  possible 
different  interests,  and  while  not  neglecting  the  condi- 
tions that  actually  exist,  to  attempt  to  subordinate  the 


122  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

interests  of  every  race  and  class  to  those  of  the  people 
as  a  whole. 

In  a  somewhat  more  direct  form  we  find  the  question 
raised  of  the  representation  in  the  Cabinet  of  certain  in- 
dustrial classes,  such  as  the  labor  unions,  or  the  capitalists, 
or  the  railroad  men,  in  order  that  the  President  may  keep 
closely  in  touch  with  these  groups.  It  will  readily  be  seen, 
however,  that  this  is  not  necessary  and  that  the  principle 
would  be  a  very  dangerous  one  to  establish.  It  is  neces- 
sary, with  reference  to  general  public  policies,  such  as  are 
represented  by  his  party,  that  the  executive  have  harmony ; 
but  when  he  needs  expert  advice  with  reference  to  the  rail- 
road question  or  the  labor  question  or  the  money  question,  he 
can  readily  get  information  and  suggestions  from  the  repre- 
sentatives of  any  of  those  classes  by  inviting  them  to  come  to 
see  him  and  present  their  case.  Usually  they  are  ready 
enough  to  present  their  claims,  even  without  an  invitation. 
The  representation  of  different  industrial  classes  in  the 
Cabinet  would  not  tend  toward  harmony,  but  rather  toward 
conflict,  and  would  produce  an  evil  greater  than  would  be 
the  benefit  to  come  from  the  added  information. 

By  far  the  largest  percentage,  however,  of  the  persons 
in  our  civil  service  are  those  who  have  to  do  routine  clerical 
work.  They  do  not  help  formulate  the  policy  of  the  gov- 
ernment; they  must  take  the  policy  already  formulated. 
They  should  be  honest,  diligent,  faithful,  efficient.  These 
qualities  in  most  countries  with  a  large  civil  service,  it  is 
found,  can  best  be  determined  by  competitive  examina- 
tion. There  are  doubtless  many  weaknesses  in  the  United 
States  service  which  should  be  reformed.  A  competitive 
examination  will  doubtless  show  knowledge  and  training 
and   experience   fairly   well;    more,   however,   is   needed. 


ADMINISTRATION  123 

In  very  many  instances  the  appointment  should,  if  possible, 
be  made  to  depend  upon  the  personality,  —  qualities  of 
sound  judgment,  of  temperament,  of  discretion,  of  tact. 
Although  some  of  these  may  be  in  part  shown  by  an  exami- 
nation, many  of  them  cannot  be  thus  determined. 

Even  worse,  perhaps,  than  this  weakness  of  the  civil 
service  examination,  is  the  restriction  of  the  executive  as  to 
the  number  of  people  that  he  may  choose  from  in  making  his 
appointments.  Some  time  ago  an  appointing  official,  who, 
so  far  as  I  can  judge,  has  never  kept  anything  in  mind  except 
the  good  of  his  department,  had  to  make  perhaps  seventy- 
five  appointments.  Examinations  were  given;  something 
over  a  hundred  people  took  them.  He  said:  "I  have  to 
make  seventy-five  appointments.  I  have  only  a  hundred 
people  to  choose  from.  Since  the  examinations  were  held 
people  have  come  to  me  who  I  have  no  doubt  could  have 
passed  the  examination,  —  people  who  are  clearly  better 
fitted  for  the  positions  than  any  one  on  the  list.  I  am  not 
able  to  appoint  any  one  of  them  under  our  civil  service 
system.  The  restriction  is  too  great  for  the  good  of  the 
service."  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
would  say  that,  on  the  whole,  he  favors  decidedly  the  com- 
petitive examination  system,  since  without  it  he  would 
be  placed  under  such  pressure  for  the  appointment  of 
favorites  of  high  executive  officers,  of  congressmen,  and  of 
politicians,  —  a  pressure  that  it  would  be  very  difficult 
for  him  to  resist,  —  that  more  harm  would  be  done  than 
by  the  limitation  of  appointees  under  the  competitive 
system.  On  the  whole,  then,  in  a  country  like  ours,  we 
may  conclude  that,  although  it  has  its  weaknesses,  the 
system  of  competitive  examinations  is  the  best  for  the 
filling  of  mere  routine  clerical  positions.     Much,  of  course, 


124  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

will  depend  upon  the  membership  of  the  civil  service  board 
that  sets  the  examinations,  because  very  much  can  be 
done  by  appropriate  questions  and  by  proper  weighing 
of  experience,  letters  of  recommendation,  etc.,  as  compared 
with  mere  knowledge. 

Under  no  circumstances  should  party  service  give  any 
one  a  claim  to  office  beyond  this,  that  in  many  instances  a 
man  who  has  been  active  in  party  management  has  shown 
thereby  ability,  power  of  leadership,  judgment  of  men, 
and  such  qualities,  so  that  to  a  certain  extent  his  party 
service  has  been  a  test  of  his  ability  not  easy  to  secure  in 
any  other  way. 

In  our  discussion  of  governmental  affairs  we  often  fail  to 
realize  how  much  work  must,  in  fact,  be  left  to  subordinates, 
and  in  consequence  how  careful  we  should  be  in  their  selec- 
tion. The  necessity  of  trusting  subordinates  to  a  great 
degree  is  one  of  the  weaknesses  of  any  executive  work, 
especially  of  government  service,  where  it  is  more  difficult 
to  secure  a  personal  check  than  in  the  case  of  a  private 
business.  Take,  for  example,  the  case  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States.  He  receives  hundreds,  even  thousands 
of  letters  some  days.  It  is  utterly  impossible  that  he  can 
read  or  even  know  anything  about  a  very  large  percentage 
of  them.  They  must  be  read  and  sorted  by  his  secretaries, 
and  in  most  cases  the  proper  action  must  be  taken  without 
consulting  him.  Likewise,  he  has  hundreds  of  callers 
every  day  under  such  circumstances  that  he  is  compelled 
to  see  most  of  them  even  though  for  only  a  few  seconds. 
There  must  therefore  be  a  sifting  through  his  subordinates 
of  the  people  who  have  access  to  him,  as  well  as  a  sifting  of 
the  material  that  comes  before  him  for  decision.  One  man 
should  be  given  thirty  seconds,  another  man  three  minutes, 


ADMINISTRATION  125 

another  man  five  minutes,  another  man  fifteen  minutes, 
another  perhaps  several  interviews  of  an  hour  or  two  each. 
Most  of  this  sifting  must  be  done  by  subordinates;  the 
most  important  cases  he  will  decide  for  himself. 

In  most  cases  also  the  subordinate  must  read  the  letters, 
forecast  the  decision,  prepare  the  reply,  and  present  it  to 
the  chief  for  signature.  In  all  routine  matters,  if  the 
subordinates  are  faithful,  this  course  of  procedure  is  safe. 
Often,  however,  the  chief  has  to  hear  a  case  and  determine 
it  in  perhaps  a  minute  or  two.  The  whole  case  is  presented, 
the  important  argument  put  before  him  in  a  letter  written 
by  his  subordinate;  he  must  make  his  decision.  Under 
these  circumstances,  mistakes  will  of  course  be  made.  A 
case  —  I  am  glad  to  say  in  a  foreign  country  —  came  to 
my  attention  a  few  months  ago  in  which,  contrary  to  the 
orders  of  his  superior  officer,  a  subordinate,  who  thought 
that  he  would  not  be  caught,  practically  snubbed  in  the 
rudest  way  a  representative  of  a  foreign  country  simply 
because  he  happened  to  have  a  prejudice  against  that  coun- 
try. His  superior  officer  later  heard  of  it;  the  subordinate 
lost  his  position.  In  any  event  the  subordinate  is  more 
likely  to  be  neglectful  and  to  do  the  wrong  thing  than  is 
his  superior;  nevertheless  he  must  usually  be  trusted.  If 
people  knew  how  much  had  to  be  left  to  subordinates, 
they  would  often  wonder  at  the  real  success  of  the  govern- 
ment of  any  great  country. 

Under  the  circumstances,  we  see  that  every  effort  should 
be  made  to  give  the  chief  executive  the  opportunity  to 
know  what  his  subordinates  are  doing  and  how  the  ad- 
ministration is  carried  on.  Every  facility  of  inspection  by 
trusted  confidential  agents  should  be  given  him.  The 
public,   every   citizen  of  the  country,  noting  failures  or 


126  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

carelessness  or  faults  in  the  administration  of  the  govern- 
ment, ought  to  let  the  chief  executive  know.  Usually 
complainants  are  mistaken,  as  they  do  not  realize  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  the  work  is  done;  but  in  many 
cases,  too  many  cases,  the  subordinates  are  not  doing 
proper  service.  The  chief  executive  should  always  be 
ready  to  investigate  complaints  made  by  private  citizens. 

The  executive  department,  if  it  is  to  be  efficient,  needs 
centralization.  Efficiency  in  any  great  business  enterprise 
means  action  as  a  unit.  In  legislative  matters  decentrali- 
zation is  better.  There  should  be  consultation  with  people 
of  different  points  of  view.  There  must  be  deliberation 
before  reaching  a  judgment  that  often  must  be  a  com- 
promise and  the  work  must  be  arranged  accordingly;  but 
in  executive  work  we  must  have  centralization.  The 
liquor  tax,  for  example,  cannot  be  collected  in  different 
sections  of  the  country  at  the  will  and  wish  of  different 
classes  of  people.  It  must  be  collected  everywhere  in  the 
same  way. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  local  matters  discretion  should  be 
left  as  far  as  possible  to  people  in  the  locality.  In  such 
things  the  principle  of  home  rule  is  sound.  We  sometimes 
speak  of  home  rule  in  matters  that  affect  the  state  as  a 
whole.  That  is  a  mistake.  The  right  principle  is  local 
option,  decentralization  in  local  matters,  centralization  in 
matters  concerning  the  country  as  a  whole.  But  even  when 
the  principle  of  decentralization  is  applied,  it  is  still  often 
desirable  that  there  be  central  inspection  and  report,  as  in 
Great  Britain  the  Local  Government  Board  inspects  local 
administrations,  even  auditing  their  accounts.  There 
should  usually  be  a  central  bureau  securing  data  on  local 
matters,  in  order  that  each  locality  may  benefit  by  the 


ADMINISTRATION  127 

experience  of  all.  In  very  many  lines  of  work  in  this  country 
we  should  find  it  profitable  to  have  even  a  federal  bureau 
for  inspection  and  report  along  many  lines  of  general  in- 
terest. 

There  has  been  much  talk,  and  even  the  federal  courts 
have  decided,  that  we  have  in  the  United  States  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  separation  of  the  powers  of  the  executive,  the 
legislature,  and  the  judiciary.  It  is  perhaps  well  to  hold 
each  branch  of  government  separately  responsible  for  its 
own  work  so  far  as  possible.  Subordination  of  one  to  the 
other  in  this  country  is  probably  not  desirable,  but  there 
can  be  no  complete  separation  of  the  work  of  the  executive 
from  that  of  the  legislature.  They  may  be  and  ought  to  be 
largely  coordinate.  They  must,  moreover,  work  together, 
with  constant  interchange  of  information  and  opinions, 
rendering  each  to  the  other  every  assistance  possible. 
Otherwise  we  cannot  have  an  efficient  service. 

One  question  further  in  connection  with  efficiency  must 
be  touched  upon.  How  much  in  the  way  of  service  to  the 
public  should  be  left  to  private  enterprise,  how  much  given 
over  to  public  officials?  In  the  government  service, 
especially  when  appointments  are  somewhat  permanent 
in  their  nature  and  a  man  feels  that  in  his  position  he  is 
fixed  for  years  or  for  life,  there  is  danger  that  the  officials 
will  become  more  or  less  neglectful  of  their  work,  or  at  any 
rate  that  they  will  not  be  so  enterprising  in  seeking  for  new 
and  better  methods  of  work  as  are  those  in  private  enter- 
prises who  are  not  merely  looking  for  promotion,  but  who 
feel  that  they  are  likely  to  lose  their  positions  under  the 
pressure  of  competition  if  their  work  is  not  of  the  best.  And 
still  nothing  could  be  worse  than  the  constant  shifting  of 
public  officials,  especially  if  this  were  done  through  the 


128  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

desire  for  partisan  advantage.  Generally  speaking,  ex- 
perience shows  that  the  public  work  is  likely  to  cost  more 
than  that  performed  by  private  persons  or  private  corpora- 
tions for  their  own  advantage.  And  yet  this  is  by  no  means 
always  the  case.  It  is  little  likely  to  be  the  case  where  the 
work  itself  is  directly  connected  with  the  government. 
Doubtless  in  many  instances  we  should  extend  the  sphere 
of  public  activity,  but  in  every  case  the  burden  of  proof 
that  a  change  will  improve  the  system,  should  rest  upon 
those  who  advocate  the  substitution  for  private  enterprise 
of  public  management  or  control. 


VIII 

THE    JUDICIARY 

The  most  important  work  of  the  courts  in  all  countries 
probably  is  to  declare  the  law,  to  tell  what  the  law  is. 
The  importance  of  this  task  is  perhaps  especially  great 
in  the  United  States ;  even  more  than  elsewhere,  because 
here  the  courts  have  the  prerogative  of  nullifying  the  law 
by  declaring  it  unconstitutional,  while  in  most  European 
countries  the  legislature  is  the  final  judge  as  to  the  validity 
of  any  act,  the  courts  rendering  a  decision  only  on  the  ques- 
tion of  interpretation,  or  possibly  of  regularity  of  procedure 
in  its  enactment. 

In  all  countries  the  courts  have  to  render  decisions  under 
the  laws.  This  means  interpretation,  and  in  consequence 
very  frequently,  as  time  goes  on,  more  or  less  modifica- 
tion of  the  laws.  In  all  countries  illustrations  of  judge- 
made  law  are  innumerable.  When  the  Sherman  Anti- 
Trust  Act  was  under  discussion  in  the  Senate,  it  is  reported 
that  speakers  before  the  committees  and  probably  a  very 
large  number  of  senators  were  of  the  opinion  that,  while 
the  act  about  to  be  passed  was  intended  to  prevent  all  com- 
binations that  should  injuriously  restrain  trade,  it  was  not 
the  intention  to  forbid  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade, 
provided  that  the  restraint  was  not  injurious  to  the  public. 
It  was  doubtless  thought  that  in  many  instances  a  certain 
degree  of  restraint  of  trade  might  prove  beneficial.  Fur- 
thermore, in  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  senators,  the  act 

129 


130  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

was   not   intended   to    include   railways,  but  merely  the 
so-called  industrial  combinations. 

When,  however,  it  became  the  duty  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  to  interpret  the  act,  it  was  de- 
clared that  it  applied  to  combinations  among  railroads  as 
well  as  to  other  combinations,  and  furthermore  that  it  for- 
bade all  contracts  and  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade, 
whether  they  were  injurious  to  the  public  interests  or  not. 
The  court  took  the  position  that  in  case  Congress  wished 
to  have  the  act  apply  only  to  those  combinations  in  unrea- 
sonable restraint  of  trade  or  those  which  were  injurious 
to  the  country,  it  should  have  clearly  expressed  that  opin- 
ion ;  that  if  Congress  now  wished  a  different  interpretation 
of  the  law,  it  was  within  its  province  and  its  duty  to  amend 
the  act.  Furthermore,  it  is  stated  that  during  the  debate 
in  Congress  on  the  subject,  a  question  was  asked  of  an  in- 
fluential senator  regarding  the  meaning  of  a  certain  clause. 
He  said  that  could  not  be  known  until  after  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  had  made  a  decision  on  that 
point.  Many  people  believe  that  our  legislatures,  whether 
state  or  federal,  are  careless  regarding  legislation,  allowing 
bills  to  pass  of  which  the  meaning  is  ambiguous.  This, 
however,  was  not  the  thought  of  the  senator.  He  meant 
rather  that,  although  he  might  be  willing  to  say  what  he 
believed  the  act  meant  and  what  his  thought  was  at  the 
time  that  he  voted,  there  could  be  no  authoritative  state- 
ment as  to  the  meaning  of  the  clause  in  question  until 
the  Supreme  Court  had  rendered  a  decision.  And  this 
is  a  sound  opinion.  Legislators  should,  of  course,  be  as 
careful  as  possible  to  avoid  ambiguity  in  drafting  acts; 
but  however  careful  they  may  be,  they  can  never  be  entirely 
sure  regarding  the  interpretation  which  the  courts  may 


THE  JUDICIARY  131 

place  upon  them,  and  even  the  courts,  although  they  hold 
themselves  more  or  less  bound  by  precedents,  may  at  any 
time  modify  previous  decisions. 

These  statements  should  not  be  understood  as  attacks 
upon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  or  of  any 
court.  We  ought  not  to  forget  how  extremely  difficult  it 
is  for  any  man  to  make  any  statement  that  may  not  be 
misunderstood  by  people  at  other  times  if  they  approach 
the  subject  in  question  from  a  different  point  of  view. 
But  when  a  court  expresses  its  opinion  that  declares  posi- 
tively what  the  law  is,  the  opinion  is  authoritative. 

The  very  great  significance  of  this  power  of  interpreta- 
tion must  not  be  overlooked.  Take,  for  example,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  implied  powers,  as  it  is  called,  in  the  federal 
Constitution,  and  note  what  that  means.  When  the  Con- 
stitution first  went  into  effect,  one  of  the  great  political 
parties  of  that  day  held  that  it  should  be  interpreted 
strictly;  the  other,  believing  that  the  Constitution  was 
drawn  in  general  terms,  favored  a  somewhat  liberal  inter- 
pretation. Had  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  early  days  been 
committed  strongly  to  the  first  doctrine,  our  Constitution 
to-day  would  have  been  vastly  different  in  its  effect.  Chief 
Justice  Marshall,  in  the  great  case  of  McCulloch  versus  the 
State  of  Maryland  et  al,1  established  the  doctrine  of  implied 
powers  and  thereby  changed  the  entire  course  of  not  merely 
the  legal  history,  but  also  of  the  economic  history  of  the 
United  States.  Can  one  question  that  if  in  that  great  case 
the  Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  the  separate  states 
had  the  power  to  tax  a  United  States  bank,  the  entire  course 
of  business  history  would  have  been  changed? 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  was  of  perhaps  vital  importance 

1  4  Wheaton  316. 


132  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

in  bringing  on  the  War  of  the  Rebellion.  If  that  decision 
had  been  couched  in  different  terms,  even  though  the  same 
point  had  been  upheld,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  activities 
of  political  parties  would  have  so  changed  their  direction 
that  entirely  different  results  would  have  been  reached. 
The  tremendous  import  of  this  power  of  interpretation  of 
the  Constitution  can  scarcely  be  exaggerated. 

Even  if  legislatures  do  their  best,  the  laws  will  be 
ambiguous.  But  aside  from  the  power  of  deciding  ambi- 
guities, the  legislatures  frequently,  by  drafting  their  laws 
in  general  terms,  expect  that  as  time  goes  on  and  specific 
cases  arise  under  differing  conditions,  the  courts  will  be 
able  better  to  apply  that  law  than  the  legislature  itself 
could  do  if  it  attempted  to  draft  the  act  in  specific  terms 
suited  to  all  times  and  places.  It  will  be  recalled  that  in 
referring  previously  to  the  work  of  the  legislature,  it  was 
noted  that  in  England  and  Germany  laws  were  much  more 
likely  to  be  couched  in  general  terms,  leaving  to  the  execu- 
tive the  power  to  determine  within  reasonable  limits  the 
specific  times  and  places  and  manner  of  putting  the  law 
into  effect.  But  even  with  this  liberty  given  to  the  execu- 
tives, disputes  will  still  arise  which  must  have  an  eventual 
settlement  in  the  courts.  Misunderstandings  are  inevitable. 
Some  weeks  ago  a  friend  of  mine  in  referring  to  business 
troubles  stated  that  in  his  judgment  perhaps  nine-tenths 
of  all  lawsuits  and  probably  an  even  greater  proportion  of 
all  personal  quarrels  came  simply  from  misunderstandings. 
Neither  party  wishes  to  make  trouble  or  intends  to  start  a 
quarrel ;  they  fail  to  make  themselves  understood.  If  we 
did  not  have  a  misunderstanding  and  a  misinterpretation 
of  the  laws,  there  would  be  few  quarrels,  —  practically  no 
lawsuits. 


THE  JUDICIARY  133 

But  even  beyond  these  difficulties  still  others  arise  from 
the  fact  that  as  a  society  develops  conditions  change, 
and  the  old  laws  must  be  put  into  effect  under  new  con- 
ditions not  contemplated  at  the  time  that  the  laws  were 
passed.  The  Interstate  Commerce  Law,  as  it  stands  at 
present  interpreted  in  the  decisions,  must,  of  necessity,  be 
entirely  different  from  any  thought  that  could  have  been 
in  the  minds  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  in  discussing 
interstate  commerce.  In  that  day  the  only  commerce  that 
they  could  have  had  in  mind  was  that  relatively  unimpor- 
tant commerce  coming  across  state  boundaries  either  by 
river  or  along  the  coast,  and  perhaps  some  minor  traffic 
brought  across  the  boundary  line  on  country  roads.  No 
such  system  of  transportation  as  the  present,  with  several 
lines  of  railways  running  from  one  side  of  the  continent  to 
the  other,  could  have  been  contemplated ;  but  the  exact 
effects  of  that  inclusive  clause  giving  to  Congress  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce  is  such  that  no  matter  what  new 
problems  come  up,  that  one  clause  must  still  be  interpreted 
under  new  conditions  by  our  Congress  or  by  our  courts. 

And  when  we  get,  as  we  shall  shortly,  aerial  navigation,  we 
shall  doubtless  have  cases  arising  where  people  starting  in 
one  state,  going  to  another,  passing  over  the  heads  of  people 
in  a  third  state,  will  need  to  know  what  sort  of  a  claim  or 
protection  the  citizens  of  the  middle  state  may  have.  This 
is  entirely  possible,  and  when  such  cases  arise,  our  Supreme 
Court  must  tell  what  is  the  wisest  way,  in  the  light  of  aerial 
navigation,  to  interpret  the  clause  drafted  into  the  Con- 
stitution more  than  a  century  ago. 

There  will  always  be  development  with  the  progress  of 
civilization.  In  consequence  our  courts  must  practically 
make  new  laws  in  their  interpretation  of  the  old  laws  under 


134  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

the  new  conditions.  The  voice  of  the  legislature  in  any 
interpretation  given  to  the  Constitution  is  only  tentative. 
When  the  court  speaks,  the  final  word  is  spoken.  In  con- 
sequence it  will  be  seen  that  the  court  must  exercise  much 
discretion.  It  ought  to  keep  in  mind  the  general  welfare 
of  the  people,  and  when  the  law  may  possibly  be  applied  in 
several  ways,  the  court  must  bear  it  in  mind  that  when  the 
law  was  passed  the  legislature  wished  the  welfare  of  the 
citizens.  They,  therefore,  should  take  the  interpretation 
that  will  benefit  the  country  most,  unless  such  an  inter- 
pretation would  obviously  be  too  strained. 

To  secure  the  wisest  interpretations  under  such  circum- 
stances, it  has  often  been  suggested  that  our  courts  obtain  in 
some  way  the  benefit  of  lay  advice.  Our  judges  are  prac- 
tically all  highly  trained  lawyers,  especially  those  in  our 
highest  courts.  They  know  the  decisions,  they  understand 
the  precedents.  But  is  it  to  be  expected  that,  able  as  they 
are,  their  time  having  been  devoted  from  early  manhood 
to  the  study  of  legal  precedents,  they  will  understand 
thoroughly  our  economic  conditions,  our  varied  business 
interests,  and  in  consequence  the  conditions  on  which  are 
based  the  business  welfare  of  the  country?  If  any  criti- 
cism can  be  made  against  our  courts,  it  is  that  there  may  be 
a  lack,  not  of  knowledge  of  law,  not  of  clear-headedness,  not 
of  upright  intention,  but  knowledge  of  business  conditions 
or  of  social  conditions  to  which  the  laws  must  be  applied. 
In  criminal  cases  we  attempt  to  supply  to  the  courts  the 
average  common-sense  judgment  of  the  common  people 
through  our  juries.  In  certain  civil  cases  involving  tech- 
nical knowledge,  questions  of  fact  are  put  into  the  hands  of 
referees  to  make  a  report.  A  suggestion  interesting  and 
well  worthy  of  consideration  has  often  been  made,  that  our 


THE  JUDICIARY  135 

courts  would  be  greatly  strengthened  if  a  minority  of  the 
members  were  men  trained  in  the  principles  of  business, 
perhaps  men  of  wide  business  experience,  who,  while,  rela- 
tively speaking,  untrained  in  law,  would  see  best  how  the 
law  should  be  applied  to  the  business  conditions  of  the  day. 

It  has  been  said  that  several  of  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  made  during  the  last 
ten  years  would  quite  probably  have  been  decidedly 
different  had  there  been  in  that  court  even  one  judge  who 
thoroughly  understood  business  conditions  and  the  effects 
upon  society  of  the  decisions  contemplated.  It  will  be 
recalled  that  several  of  the  most  important  decisions  have 
been  made  by  a  vote  of  five  to  four.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  had  the  court  possessed  more  varied  and  accurate 
knowledge  of  business  conditions,  at  least  one  or  two  votes 
might  have  been  changed. 

Judge-made  law  is  very  frequently  technical  in  its  nature. 
It  ought  to  be  conservative,  as  it  usually  is  always  some- 
what behind  the  times.  If  any  radical  laws  are  to  go  into 
effect,  they  should  not  be  made  by  the  court  but  rather 
by  the  legislature,  because  they  will  then  come  directly 
from  the  people  connected  with  business  and  social  con- 
ditions. 

Judge-made  law,  applying  to  new  conditions,  must  of 
course  appear  only  after  the  new  conditions  have  come. 
It  must  be  behind  the  times.  The  criticism  sometimes 
heard  that  the  court  decisions  are  reactionary  and  hark 
back  to  what  is  unreasonable  and  undesirable,  judging 
from  actual  business  and  social  conditions,  is  of  necessity 
unjust.     The  decisions  cannot  precede  the  conditions. 

What  is  the  real  significance  of  the  act  of  a  court  declaring 
an  act  unconstitutional  ?     Does  it  not  mean  that  it  is  the 


136  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

business  at  times  of  our  courts  of  appeal  primarily  to  thwart 
the  present  will  of  the  country  as  expressed  through  the 
legislatures  or  through  a  Congress  that  has  comparatively 
lately  been  elected,  in  order  to  maintain  in  effect  the  more 
deliberate  judgment  of  the  country  as  expressed  in  its  con- 
stitution? A  change  in  the  constitution  is  a  deliberate 
act,  purposely  made  difficult.  The  form  of  constitutional 
amendment  is  different  in  various  states,  but  in  all  states 
the  process  must  be  deliberate  and  the  amendment  finally 
submitted  to  the  people  for  confirmation.  If  the  legisla- 
ture attempts  to  pass  new  laws  and  thus  to  bring  new 
thoughts  into  effect  in  legislation,  it  is  probable  that  it 
represents  at  the  present  time  the  real  will  of  the  people 
better  than  does  a  constitution  made  in  years  gone  by; 
but  on  the  most  important  questions  the  courts  may  well 
thwart  this  present  will  of  the  people  in  order  that  the 
matter  may  be  thought  over  again  and  the  people  compelled 
to  say  after  such  deliberation  whether  they  seriously  mean 
to  amend  the  constitution.  It  will  be  recalled  that  in  the 
chapter  on  representation  the  sentence  of  Edmund  Burke 
to  the  electors  of  Bristol  was  quoted  in  which  he  declared 
that  he  appealed  from  the  opinion  of  his  constituents  of 
the  day  to  their  opinion  as  it  must  be  five  years  thereafter. 
That  is  practically  what  a  court  does  when  it  declares  an 
act  unconstitutional.  It  appeals  from  the  present  opinion 
of  the  people  as  represented  in  the  legislature  to  their 
more  deliberate  opinion.  Going  back  to  their  original 
thought  in  making  the  constitution,  the  court  declares  that 
if  they  wish  to  change  that  opinion,  it  must  be  a  very 
deliberate  act  of  their  own  by  a  constitutional  amendment, 
not  by  a  legislative  act. 

But,  though  the  courts  often  refuse  to  permit  a  legis- 


THE  JUDICIARY  137 

lature  to  change  a  constitution  except  by  deliberate  act 
of  amendment  submitted  to  the  people,  the  will  of  the 
people  will  ultimately  be  effective  even  through  the 
courts.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  courts  will  truckle 
to  popular  opinion  or  be  swayed  too  rapidly  by  popular 
opinion,  but  since  the  opinion  is  changing  year  by  year, 
it  will  ultimately  be  found  that  the  courts  will  reflect 
such  change.  We  get  our  opinions  on  practically  all  local, 
political,  and  social  questions  from  the  circumstances 
in  which  we  are  living.  As  these  change,  our  judgments 
change.  In  consequence  with  the  changes  in  judges  and 
with  changing  conditions,  the  opinions  of  the  courts  must 
vary. 

There  have  been  charges  at  times  of  political  agitation 
of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  leading  politicians  or  statesmen 
to  "pack"  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
When  we  consider  how  many  important  decisions  have 
been  rendered  by  a  majority  of  one,  it  will  be  seen  how 
easy  it  would  be  for  the  executive,  without  appointing  a 
bad  judge  or  an  insincere  judge,  to  select  a  man  whose 
inclinations  would  normally  be  such  that,  siding  with  the 
minority  of  four,  he  would  change  the  interpretation  of 
many  of  our  most  important  laws.  But,  without  any  de- 
liberate attempt  so  to  influence  the  conclusions  of  the  court, 
we  must  expect  that  as  time  goes  on  many  decisions  will 
be  reversed  and  our  Constitution  thus  gradually  developed. 

This  power  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States  of  declaring 
an  act  unconstitutional  is  most  significant.  In  no  other 
country  in  the  world  have  the  courts  such  power.  Never- 
theless, students  in  other  countries  frequently  recognize 
this  power  in  our  court  as  something  extremely  desirable 
as  well  as  suggestive.     At  the  time  the  Supreme  Court  of 


138  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

the  United  States  rendered  its  decision  on  the  income  tax, 
I  happened  to  be  in  Geneva,  Switzerland.  The  report  of 
the  decision  came  next  day  in  the  news  despatches.  A 
banker  of  considerable  influence  in  the  community,  a  prom- 
inent citizen,  said  that  to  him  it  was  a  most  surprising 
fact  that  a  court  could,  by  making  a  decision  in  a  specific 
case,  set  aside  the  will  of  the  people  as  expressed  through 
the  legislature;  and  still  more  surprising,  he  thought, 
was  the  fact  that  the  people  could  be  found  that  would 
support  the  court  in  making  such  a  decision.  "  In  Switzer- 
land," he  said  in  effect,  "  if  the  court  were  to  say  to  the  ex- 
ecutive that  an  act  by  which  they  were  already  collecting 
a  large  revenue  were  invalid  and  could  not  be  put  into  effect, 
the  decision  would  not  be  obeyed ;  but  with  you  in  America 
there  seems  no  thought  on  the  part  of  any  one  of  attempting 
to  resist  the  decision  of  your  Supreme  Court.  I  do  not 
believe  there  is  any  country  in  Europe  where  such  an  act  of 
a  court  could  be  permitted,  nor  any  country  where  the 
people  would  not  support  the  executive  in  resisting  a  court 
under  such  circumstances.  The  fact  that  the  people  of 
the  United  States  are  so  amenable  to  the  law  and  the 
Constitution  that  they  are  willing  to  support  the  Court 
as  against  their  own  representatives,  is  the  best  evidence 
that  can  be  secured  of  the  ability  of  the  American  people 
to  govern  themselves."  I  have  never  heard  stronger  terms 
of  admiration  for  the  American  people  than  this  expression 
of  opinion.  I  said  to  him,  "Do  you  not  believe  that  the 
Swiss  people  would  stand  by  your  court  under  such  circum- 
stances ?  "  "  I  do  not,"  he  said.  "  In  Switzerland  the  legis- 
lature is  the  final  interpreter  of  the  law.  If  any  attempt 
were  made  to  overturn  its  will  by  the  court,  the  executive 
would  resist  and  the  people  would  support  the  executive." 


THE  JUDICIARY  139 

The  power  of  the  courts  most  noticed  in  everyday  life 
is  that  of  punishing  violators  of  the  law  of  the  state  and  that 
of  settling  disputes  between  different  citizens,  whether  the 
injury  come  from  an  assault  or  a  crime  against  a  person, 
or  the  violation  of  a  contract,  direct  or  implied.  Such 
powers  need  no  discussion. 

In  uncivilized  states  the  injured  party  is  supposed  to 
redress  his  own  wrongs.  The  appointment  of  courts  to 
settle  disputes  so  as  to  avoid  private  vengeance  is  one  of 
the  most  accurate  marks  of  a  progressive  civilization,  and 
one  that  it  takes  centuries  thoroughly  to  establish. 

In  some  countries  exist  most  interesting  institutions  of  a 
legal  nature  to  forestall  in  the  interests  of  peace  the  settle- 
ment of  disputes  by  courts  of  law.  In  Norway,  for  ex- 
ample, exist  courts  of  conciliation.  Two  men,  usually 
substantial  men  of  the  community,  are  selected  as  men  of 
good  judgment  whom  the  people  can  trust.  In  case  a 
dispute  arises  between  two  individuals,  before  the  case  can 
be  brought  into  a  court  of  law,  the  parties  are  expected  to 
come  before  this  court  of  conciliation.  They  come  alone; 
the  public  is  not  admitted.  In  certain  instances  they  may 
bring  a  friend  to  help  explain  to  the  court  what  the  dispute 
is  about;  no  lawyer  is  admitted  under  any  circumstances. 
The  disputants  state  their  case  in  their  own  words ;  they  are 
questioned  by  the  judges  until  the  case  is  understood.  The 
judges  then  state  what  they  believe  to  be  a  fair  basis  of 
settlement,  and  attempt  to  harmonize  the  feelings  of  the 
two  disputants.  Inasmuch  as  most  of  our  disputes  arise 
from  misunderstandings,  when  the  cases  are  presented  to 
two  disinterested  parties,  they  can  usually  find  out  the 
point  of  misunderstanding  and  settle  the  trouble.  Very 
generally  people  coming  to  the  court  of  conciliation  in  anger 


140  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

go  away  friendly.  More  than  90  per  cent  of  all  disagree- 
ments that  come  before  these  courts  are  settled  before  they 
come  to  a  court  of  law  at  an  expense  of  only  some  75  cents. 
In  case  a  settlement  is  not  reached  and  the  people  are  not 
willing  to  leave  the  dispute  to  the  arbitration  of  the  judges, 
they  may  go  on  and  bring  suit  at  law.  In  that  event,  a  party 
who  has  been  willing  to  accept  the  opinion  of  the  court  of 
conciliation  may  state  that  fact,  but  it  has  no  deciding  effect. 

It  is  clearly  worth  while  to  attempt  to  settle  disputes 
in  this  friendly  way.  Too  often  at  the  present  time  a 
little  misunderstanding  is  developed  into  an  important 
lawsuit  through  the  biased  action  of  an  interested  lawyer 
or  of  unwise  friends.  How  much  might  well  be  saved  to 
the  industrial  interests  of  the  country  if  the  court  expenses 
could  thus  be  avoided.  We  have  the  beginning  of  such  a 
court  in  modified  form  in  North  Dakota.  Such  institu- 
tions might  well  be  generally  established. 

On  the  continent  of  Europe  there  are  special  admin- 
istrative courts  to  settle  cases  in  which  public  officials  are 
concerned.  If,  for  example,  the  postmaster  in  his  official 
capacity  wrongs  a  citizen  and  complaint  is  made,  the  ques- 
tion comes  before  an  administrative  court  made  up  in  part 
of  officials  trained  along  administrative  lines  as  well  as  in 
law.  In  Great  Britain  and  in  the  United  States  adminis- 
trative officials  under  similar  circumstances  are  brought 
before  the  regular  courts. 

It  is  desirable,  of  course,  that  matters  concerning  the 
administration  of  the  state  be  settled  by  those  skilled  in 
administration.  Those  who  look  at  administrative  courts 
from  the  point  of  view  of  an  American  or  an  Englishman 
are  likely  to  feel  that  they  are  a  device  of  the  executive 
to  strengthen  his  own  power  and  to  prevent  subordinate 


THE  JUDICIARY  141 

officials  from  being  punished  by  another  branch  of  the 
government  for  remissness  in  duty.  Countries  with  a 
strong  tendency  toward  centralization  are  likely  to  establish 
administrative  courts;  those  disposed  to  be  jealous  of 
executive  power  will  prefer  the  American  and  English 
method  of  control  of  administrative  officials. 

The  question  is  frequently  asked  whether  it  would  not 
be  wise  for  the  courts  that  have  the  power  of  declaring  an 
act  unconstitutional,  to  express  an  official  opinion  regarding 
the  constitutionality  of  a  bill  pending  before  the  legislature. 
A  member  of  any  of  our  courts,  if  asked  his  opinion  regard- 
ing the  constitutionality  of  a  bill,  will  usually  decline  to 
express  an  opinion,  saying,  The  matter  may  come  to  me 
for  interpretation  later ;  until  then  I  must  not  interpret  it. 
Excepting  in  a  few  states  where  such  action  is  provided 
by  the  constitution,  the  courts  generally  refuse  to  express 
an  opinion  on  pending  legislation.  They  decide  only  spe- 
cific cases  brought  before  them.  This  is  a  wise  policy.  It 
is  extremely  desirable  that  our  courts  be  kept  free  from  any 
partisan  tone.  Many  of  the  bills  pending  before  the  leg- 
islatures affect  political  interests  and  political  parties.  If 
the  courts  are  compelled  to  express  opinions  on  such  matters 
in  advance,  they  are  much  more  likely  to  be  charged  with  par- 
tisanship. After  the  bill  becomes  a  law  the  court  in  a  spe- 
cific case  does  not  pass  its  opinion  in  general  terms  upon  the 
meaning  of  the  law,  but  it  decides  its  application  under 
the  circumstances  arising  in  the  special  case.  It  may  thus 
easily  avoid  the  charge  of  partisanship. 

Impartiality  of  the  judiciary  must  be  secured.  The 
judges  should  therefore  be  independent  of  the  legislature 
and  of  the  executive  as  regards  the  tenure  of  their  office, 
their  salaries,  or  the  way  in  which  their  work  is  to  be  done. 


142  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

Many  people  think  that  it  is  wise  to  have  the  judges  in  our 
higher  courts  appointed  by  the  executive  instead  of  elected. 
Some  favor  terms  of  office  comparatively  short,  say  six 
or  twelve  years;  some  think  judges  should  be  chosen  or 
appointed  during  good  behavior  or  for  life.  Most  writers 
on  the  question  seem  to  favor  the  appointive  system  and  to 
suggest  that  judges  be  appointed  for  life  or  during  good 
behavior.  The  probability  is  that  the  difference  of  the 
results  secured  by  these  different  methods  of  appointment 
is  not  great.  With  here  and  there  an  exception  very  little 
has  been  said  against  the  elective  courts  of  the  United 
States.  Generally  speaking,  our  courts  of  last  resort  and 
often  our  minor  courts  are  institutions  very  creditable  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  even  in  the  eyes  of  for- 
eigners. 

The  term  of  office  should  doubtless  not  be  too  short. 
There  is  an  expense  in  changing  judges  too  often;  the  time 
required  for  working  into  the  duties  of  the  office  so  as 
thoroughly  to  understand  them  is  considerable ;  it  is  impor- 
tant that  lawyers  learn  to  know  the  judges,  and  the  judges 
learn  to  know  the  men  who  appear  before  them.  There 
are  certain  dangers  in  the  appointment  of  judges  for  life. 
The  judge  may  perhaps  not  retire  at  the  time  when  his 
powers  begin  to  fail ;  but  with  proper  retirement  pensions 
or  certain  regulations  governing  retirement,  this  evil  may 
largely  be  avoided.  The  difficulty  is  inherent  in  human 
nature ;  it  is  found  in  every  line  of  activity.  In  our  country 
the  people  have  had  so  great  a  respect  for  judicial  office, 
have  been  so  strong  in  their  determination  to  keep  the 
courts  free  from  corruption  as  a  matter  of  pride,  that  the 
men  nominated  for  important  judicial  offices  have  almost 
invariably  been  men  of  considerable  ability,  of  high  char- 


THE  JUDICIARY  143 

acter,  and  usually  of  a  judicial  temperament.    Of  course 
exceptions  will  be  found. 

Moreover,  there  is  so  strong  a  tradition  in  favor  of  im- 
partiality on  the  part  of  the  judges  that  many  a  man  who, 
as  a  practising  lawyer,  has  been  looked  upon  as  partisan  in 
nature,  even  perhaps  corrupt  under  certain  circumstances, 
when  he  becomes  a  judge,  stands  to  his  duty,  respecting 
himself,  respecting  his  office. 

Usually  in  this  country  and  in  most  modern  states,  the 
judges  have  been  strongly  inclined  to  conserve  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  common  people  as  opposed  to  the 
executive  or  to  the  legislature,  which  at  times  seem  in- 
clined to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  the  people.  On 
that  account  the  judges  have  usually  in  both  ancient 
and  modern  times  enjoyed  special  honor  and  respect  from 
the  citizens  as  upholders  of  right  and  justice.  It  is, 
therefore,  considering  these  facts,  —  and  I  think  the  facts 
are  undeniable,  —  natural  that  we  should  expect  that  in 
times  of  peace  our  judges  will  find  their  influence  strength- 
ened as  compared  with  the  power  of  the  executive  and 
of  the  legislature.  In  times  of  emergency,  such  as  that 
of  war,  the  executive  has  the  opportunity,  as  has  been 
said,  to  strengthen  his  power  at  the  expense  of  the  courts 
and  of  the  legislature.  But  in  times  of  peace,  as  the  course 
of  events  normally  move,  the  courts  in  their  power  of  inter- 
preting the  law,  overruling  the  legislature,  controlling  the 
executive,  become  the  conservators  of  the  rights  of  the 
people,  and  the  people  seeing  that  their  power  is  strength- 
ened by  the  judges,  often  make  it  evident  that  in  times  of 
peace  they  hold  the  courts  to  be  the  most  trusted  if  not 
the  most  powerful  branch  of  government. 


DC 

CONSTITUTIONS 

Heretofore  we  have  discussed  the  various  departments 
of  the  government  and  the  functions  performed  by  those 
departments.  Now  we  shall  attempt  to  bring  together 
in  a  discussion  of  constitutions  some  of  the  fundamental 
principles  that  underlie  the  governments  of  all  free  countries. 

I  was  much  interested  in  receiving  the  other  day  from  a 
friend  of  mine  a  copy  of  the  constitution  of  our  new  state 
of  Oklahoma.  The  first  fact  that  impressed  me  as  I  turned 
over  the  leaves  was  that  the  constitution  proper,  aside 
from  the  other  material  printed  with  it,  contained  96  pages. 
One  might  perhaps  go  further  and  put  in  with  the  constitu- 
tion some  other  matter  so  as  to  include  175  pages;  but  the 
constitution,  strictly  speaking,  contained  96  pages  of  closely 
printed  matter. 

I  next  turned  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  found  that  so  far  as  I  could  estimate,  it  contained  about 
14  pages  of  the  same  size.  I  think  that  one  ought  not  to 
assume  that  Oklahoma  is  that  much  more  important  than 
the  United  States,  but  these  facts  do  show,  at  any  rate,  that 
in  later  days  people  have  thought  it  wise  to  put  more  matter 
into  the  constitutions.  I  then  turned  to  the  constitution 
of  the  state  of  California,  adopted  1875,  and  found  it  con- 
tained 55  pages,  and  that  of  South  Carolina,  adopted  1895, 
contained  46. 

It  is  doubtless  a  fair  observation  to  make  that  as  time 

144 


CONSTITUTIONS  145 

has  passed  the  constitutions  of  new  states  and  the  amend- 
ments and  revisions  of  the  older  states  have  greatly  in- 
creased in  length.  The  constitutions  have  also  very  de- 
cidedly changed  in  character  and  now  include  many 
subjects  left  out  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
because  our  forefathers  who  made  that  Constitution 
thought  that  it  should  include  only  the  laws  that  were 
absolutely  fundamental,  whereas  the  makers  of  our  new 
constitutions,  under  the  influence  of  popular  feeling,  feel 
that  in  the  constitution  should  be  placed  many  provisions 
that  have  the  nature  of  ordinary  legislation.  They  do 
not  trust  their  legislatures. 

Let  us  consider  what  we  mean  by  a  constitution,  and  see 
if  we  can  get  some  definite  idea  of  what  one  should  contain. 
Of  course,  we  all  know  that  besides  written  constitutions 
we  may  have  a  constitution  based  simply  upon  customs, 
decrees  of  the  courts,  or  mere  understandings  of  the  people ; 
and  we  may  properly  say  that  all  countries  that  have  any- 
thing like  a  permanent  form  of  government  have  constitu- 
tions in  some  form  or  other.  Anything  in  Great  Britain 
that  is  "unconstitutional"  means  anything  that  is  con- 
trary to  the  laws  that  the  English  people  have  come  to 
agree  upon  as  those  of  the  greatest  importance  in  their 
social  and  political  life;  while  anything  in  the  United 
States  that  is  unconstitutional  is  something  in  conflict  with 
the  written  Constitution.  The  difference  is  very  important. 
Nevertheless,  if  we  analyze  these  constitutions  and  find  out 
what  we  mean  by  them,  we  shall  see  that  the  English 
Constitution  and  that  of  the  United  States  are  practically 
the  same  as  regards  their  contents.  Frequently  we  say 
that  the  constitution  is  the  fundamental  law  of  the  coun- 
try; then  when  we  attempt  to  analyze  what  is  really  funda- 


146  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

mental  in  the  political  life  of  the  people,  we  find  that  these 
things  do  not  agree  with  some  provisions  of  some  written 
constitutions. 

Professor  Jesse  Macy  in  his  studies  of  the  English  Con- 
stitution defines  the  word  "  constitution "  in  this  way 
(you  will  notice  that  he  carefully  avoids  the  use  of  any 
synonymous  noun),  "A  constitution  is  that  whereby  the 
instrumentalities  and  powers  of  government  are  distributed 
and  harmonized."  There  is  simply  the  one  fact,  the 
constitution  tells  the  way  in  which  the  government  is 
organized  and  exercises  its  powers.  I  suppose  we  might  say 
that  in  a  savage  tribe  which  has  a  chief,  a  man  who  regularly 
exercises  the  executive  power  and  determines  what  are 
the  customs  of  the  ancestors  of  the  tribe,  and  himself  acts 
in  accordance  with  these  customs  and  compels  the  obedi- 
ence of  his  people  to  these  customs,  there  is  a  constitution. 

Professor  John  W.  Burgess,  who  perhaps  has  done  more 
than  any  other  American  writer  to  make  clear  the  principles 
of  politics  from  the  legal  and  constitutional  side,  says 
that  a  complete  constitution  consists  of  three  fundamental 
parts  —  some  other  writers  would  add  a  fourth : 1  First, 
the  organization  of  the  state  for  the  accomplishment  of 
future  changes  in  the  constitution.  That  is  to  say,  an 
organization  should  be  so  planned  that  the  fundamental 
laws  may  as  the  years  go  by  adapt  themselves  to  succeeding 
changes  of  political  and  social  conditions.  In  his  plan 
there  must  be  some  way  prescribed  to  change  the  written 
constitution,  and  a  power  must  be  given  to  certain  groups 
of  people  in  the  community  to  bring  about  these  changes. 
Without  this  adaptation  of  the  constitution  to  the  growing 
needs  of  the  people  at  every  step  of  progress,  we  should 
1 "  Political  Science  and  Comparative  Constitutional  Law,"  I,  137  ff. 


CONSTITUTIONS  147 

have,  instead  of  ordinary  changes,  a  serious  revolution. 
Otherwise  there  could  be  no  change;  the  state  would  stag- 
nate. So  he  insists  that  one  of  the  important  parts  of  a 
written  constitution  is  its  organization  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  future  changes  or  amendments. 

A  little  while  ago  the  president  of  Chicago  University 
gave  an  address  in  which,  speaking  on  a  similar  topic,  he 
said  that  we  should  recognize  that  in  every  state  there 
are  two  conceptions  that  ought  to  be  kept  in  mind.  One 
is  the  social  conception  of  the  people  of  the  state  that  in- 
cludes every  one  in  the  state;  the  other  is  the  practical 
conception,  meaning  by  this  the  group  of  people  in  the  state 
that  have  the  right  to  pass  upon  a  constitution,  to  make  a 
new  constitution,  or  to  amend  an  old  one.  In  our  country 
this  practical  conception  would  mean  the  body  of  voters. 
According  to  that  view  we  should  need  to  prescribe  in 
every  constitution  provisions  to  carry  out  this  idea  of  the 
composition  of  the  political  society.  In  other  words,  we 
should  name  the  people  who  have  the  right  to  propose 
amendments,  to  make  amendments  or  pass  upon  them, 
or  to  make  a  new  constitution.  Perhaps  we  might  go  still 
farther  and  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  the  political 
society  must  act  in  order  to  change  the  form  of  the  con- 
stitution. 

In  the  second  place,  according  to  Professor  Burgess, 
there  must  be  in  every  constitution  a  "constitution  of 
liberty."  This  means  that  provision  must  be  made  to  pro- 
tect the  liberties  of  the  people  against  possible  encroach- 
ment of  either  the  government  or  private  individuals. 
In  any  state  properly  organized,  it  must  be  clearly  under- 
stood what  the  rights  of  each  individual  are  as  opposed 
to  any  action  of  the  government  if  that  tries  to  go  beyond 


148  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

its  prescribed  powers,  and  also  what  are  the  rights  of  each 
individual  against  aggressive  action  on  the  part  of  his 
fellow-citizens.  Whenever,  therefore,  in  a  written  con- 
stitution we  find  a  declaration  of  rights,  that  simply  means 
that  certain  liberties  are  guaranteed  to  the  individual,  and 
that  the  government  must  not  infringe  upon  those  liberties. 

The  constitution  itself  will  clearly  define,  of  course,  just 
what  these  liberties  are.  We  may  perhaps  find  states  in 
which  there  are  no  formal  guarantees  to  the  people  of  their 
rights  and  liberties;  but  they  may  still  exist  through  custom. 
In  the  case  of  a  theoretically  absolute  monarchy,  the 
individual  citizens  have  no  rights  as  against  the  sovereign ; 
his  will  is  law.  If  he  chooses  to  take  away  the  liberty  of 
any  individual,  he  may.  But  under  a  constitution  which 
guarantees  rights  to  the  people  that  cannot  be  done.  Be- 
yond a  written  constitution,  beyond  the  will  of  a  sovereign, 
we  shall  always  find  implicit  in  the  customs  of  the  people 
some  beliefs  which  protect  them  within  certain  limits  against 
their  government.  If  their  government  steps  beyond 
these  limits,  a  revolution  is  bound  to  come.  In  analyzing  a 
constitution,  then,  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  all 
states  that  make  any  pretense  towards  popular  government 
give  to  their  people  some  degree  of  constitutional  liberty, 
and  even  if  the  constitution  does  not  define  exactly  what 
those  liberties  are,  they  nevertheless  are  understood  by 
the  people;   custom  has  determined  them. 

The  third  part  of  a  constitution  is  what  Professor 
Burgess  names  the  "constitution  of  government";  that 
is  to  say,  the  form  in  which  the  different  departments  of 
government  are  organized.  The  word  "constitution" 
itself  really  means  the  way  in  which  the  people  stand  to- 
gether organized  to  do  their  work.     That  is  the  part  of 


CONSTITUTIONS  149 

the  constitution  that  ordinarily  most  clearly  appears. 
It  need  not  tell  the  way  in  which  the  legislature  shall 
organize,  or  the  executive  perform  its  functions,  or  the 
judiciary  be  selected :  but  it  must  either  specifically  or 
through  custom  and  understanding,  determine  the  organi- 
zation and  powers  of  each  one  of  the  departments  of  the 
government  and  prescribe  its  main  functions.  We  may 
sum  the  matter  up  then  by  saying  that  a  constitution 
ordinarily  prescribes  the  way  in  which  it  should  be  changed 
whenever  that  becomes  necessary,  it  enumerates  the  liber- 
ties of  the  people,  it  prescribes  the  form  of  organization 
of  the  government,  and  ordinarily  it  names  the  ways  in 
which  the  government  shall  exercise  its  various  powers  and 
functions. 

Some  writers  go  further  and  say  that  every  constitution 
must  contain  an  enacting  clause  in  some  form,  but  this 
can  be  clearly  understood.  Any  constitution-making 
power  will  see  to  it  that  its  provisions  have  the  force  of 
law. 

Especially  on  our  great  political  holidays,  or  at  the  times 
of  our  political  campaigns,  we  frequently  read  or  hear 
statements  regarding  the  sacredness  of  our  Constitution 
that  would  seem  to  imply  that  it  is  a  fetish  to  be  worshiped, 
or  a  sacred  book,  and  not  an  ordinary  document  and  law. 

Some  persons  seem  to  imply  in  their  statements  that  it  is 
unpatriotic  for  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  criticize 
the  Constitution.  That  is  clearly  a  wrong  conception. 
Our  states  have  come  together  in  a  society.  The  Con- 
stitution is  simply  a  clear  definite  statement  of  the  most 
important  law,  the  fundamental  law.  This  law  may 
be  changed;  it  ought  to  be  changed  from  time  to 
time,  because   the  conditions   under  which   we   live  will 


150  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

change.  We  should  then  keep  this  conception  of  the 
Constitution  in  mind,  that  it  is  simply  a  clear  state- 
ment of  the  most  important,  most  fundamental  laws; 
and  it  is  to  be  studied  and  criticized  and  discussed  as 
are  other  laws. 

We  should  also  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  it  makes  little 
difference  whether  the  constitution  is  a  formal  written 
document  as  in  the  United  States,  or  simply  certain  general 
statutes  like  Magna  Charta,  the  Bill  of  Rights,  the  Reform 
Act  of  1832,  and  others,  as  in  Great  Britain.  In  either  case 
the  constitution  is  reasonably  understood,  and  in  either 
case  we  may  speak  of  legislation  as  constitutional  or  un- 
constitutional. 

You  cannot  tell  exactly,  without  careful  consideration  of 
the  statutes,  what  acts  are  really  fundamental  in  their 
nature.  You  must  search  and  find  fifteen  or  twenty 
statutes  that,  taken  together,  make  up  on  the  whole  the 
English  Constitution,  but  most  of  them  will  contain  also 
certain  extraneous  matters  that  are  not  constitutional. 
Then  aside  from  these  statutes,  aside  from  the  court  de- 
cisions even,  we  shall  find  many  customs  that  perhaps  are 
not  formally  mentioned  at  all.  Nevertheless,  they  have 
become  so  ingrained  into  the  political  habits  of  the  people 
that  they  really  form  a  part  of  the  English  Constitution. 
Possibly  they  are  simply  crude  understandings,  neverthe- 
less they  are  firmly  based.  For  example,  the  custom  now 
nearly  a  century  old  of  having  the  British  Cabinet, 
whenever  it  is  defeated  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  an 
important  measure,  resign  in  a  body  or  else  dissolve  the 
House  and  call  for  a  new  election,  is  part  of  the  British 
Constitution.  It  is  not  prescribed  by  statute,  but  it  is  so 
embedded  in  the  British  political  mind  that  no  one  would 


CONSTITUTIONS  151 

think  of  acting  otherwise.  It  is  at  the  present  day  practi- 
cally as  much  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  Great  Britain 
as  is  the  Magna  Charta  itself. 

In  Great  Britain  we  say  that  the  Constitution  may  be 
amended  by  statute.  Any  act  that  the  British  Parlia- 
ment passes  is  legal,  and  if  Parliament  is  willing  to  pass  an 
act  fundamental  in  its  nature  and  accepted  by  the  people, 
that  is  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  But  it  would 
be  no  more  of  an  amendment  to  the  British  Constitution  to 
pass  an  act  now  determining  what  the  composition  of  the 
Cabinet  should  be,  or  the  times  it  should  resign,  or  the  way 
in  which  it  should  do  its  work,  than  has  been  brought  about 
in  practice  from  the  custom  of  the  Cabinet  for  decades. 
If  a  statute  is  passed,  we  should  have  something  specific 
and  prescribed,  but  it  would  simply  put  in  definite  legal  form 
something  that  has  long  existed.  It  is  the  existence  of  the 
custom  that  has  made  it  a  part  of  the  Constitution  even 
before  it  is  put  into  law. 

In  the  United  States,  and  in  most  modern  countries  that 
have  written  constitutions,  they  are  usually  adopted  and 
promulgated  by  some  body  different  from  the  legislature. 
This  is  probably  desirable,  because  we  get  accustomed  to 
our  legislatures  and  often  we  lose  interest  in  them  simply 
because  we  are  accustomed  to  them.  If  we  are  to  make 
a  change  in  our  laws  which  we  believe  to  be  absolutely 
fundamental  in  its  nature,  it  is  wise,  therefore,  to  ask  some 
body  especially  elected  for  the  purpose  to  act  in  connection 
with  that  change.  Moreover,  it  is  usually  desirable  before 
the  change  is  made  to  have  its  provisions  submitted  to  the 
people  for  ratification.  In  other  countries,  where  the  people 
are  less  active  in  governmental  affairs,  the  constitution  is 
sometimes  prepared  and  promulgated  by  a  statesman,  a 


152  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

king,  or  emperor,  himself  an  officer  of  the  sovereign  power 
in  that  state. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  way  in  which  these  constitu- 
tion-making bodies  of  officials  speak  of  themselves  and  the 
way  in  which  they  present  their  enacting  clause.  The 
preamble  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  begins. 
"We  the  people  of  the  United  States  [I  will  not  comment 
here  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  people  "]  in  order  to  form 
a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic 
tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote  the 
general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to 
ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this 
constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America."  Some 
writers  of  constitutional  law  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
many  constitution-making  bodies  go  further  and  not  only 
mention  the  purpose  and  the  people  who  obtain  the  consti- 
tution, but  also  generally  recognize  the  hand  of  Providence 
in  the  making  of  the  state,  either  because  such  recognition 
is  a  survival  of  the  old  times  and  a  practically  universal 
belief  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  state,  or  because  the  people 
are  really  reverent  and  thinking  of  the  divine  help  that  they 
believe  is  given  them. 

Note  the  Constitution  of  the  state  of  Oklahoma,  "We,  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Oklahoma,  grateful  to  Almighty 
God  for  our  freedom,  and  in  order  to  secure  and  perpetuate 
its  blessings,  do  establish  this  constitution."  Quite  differ- 
ent is  the  Constitution  of  Japan,  or  that  of  Prussia.  In 
the  first  paragraph  of  the  Constitution  of  Japan  we  read : 
"  Having,  by  virtue  of  the  glories  of  Our  Ancestors,  ascended 
the  throne  of  a  lineal  succession  unbroken  for  ages  eternal ; 
desiring  to  promote  the  welfare  of,  and  to  give  development 
to,  the  moral  and  intellectual  faculties  of  Our  beloved  sub- 


CONSTITUTIONS  153 

jects,  the  very  same  that  have  been  favored  with  the 
benevolent  care  and  affectionate  vigilance  of  our  Ancestors ; 
and  hoping  to  maintain  the  prosperity  of  the  state,  in  con- 
cert with  Our  people  and  with  their  support,  We  hereby 
promulgate,  in  pursuance  of  Our  Imperial  rescript  of  the 
12th  day  of  the  10th  month  of  the  14th  year  of  Meiji,  a 
fundamental  law  of  state,  to  exhibit  the  principles,  by  which 
We  are  to  be  guided  in  Our  conduct,  and  to  point  out  to 
what  Our  descendants  and  Our  subjects  and  their  descend- 
ants are  forever  to  conform. 

"The  rights  of  sovereignty  of  the  state,  We  have  in- 
herited from  Our  Ancestors,  and  We  shall  bequeath  them  to 
Our  descendants.  Neither  We  nor  they  shall  in  future 
fail  to  assert  them,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  hereby  granted." 

You  will  notice  that  this  is  really  little  different  in  sub- 
stance from  the  other  constitutions.  In  both  cases  there 
is  a  statement  that  the  body  believes  it  has  authority  to 
act,  a  statement  of  the  purposes  for  which  the  constitution  is 
made,  and  a  statement  of  authority.  In  the  Constitution  of 
the  Empire  of  Japan,  there  is  also  a  recognition  of  the  power 
of  effecting  changes,  more  particularly  in  connection  with 
the  promulgation  of  the  Constitution.  The  Constitution 
of  Japan  can  be  changed  by  the  Emperor  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  itself. 

In  our  study  of  the  judiciary,  we  note  the  difficulty  of 
avoiding  ambiguities  in  law.  The  difficulty  is  no  less  here. 
What,  for  example,  do  we  mean  by  the  statement,  "  We  the 
people  of  the  United  States"?  If  our  Constitution  were 
passed  upon  by  all  of  the  people  that  constitute  the  social 
state  which  has  been  mentioned,  we  should  have  one  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase  "people  of  the  United  States."     If  the 


154  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

Constitution  is  passed  upon  by  only  those  people  that  are 
counted  in  the  political  state  mentioned,  we  find  another 
meaning  of  the  term  "people  of  the  United  States."  Both 
meanings  are  in  common  use.  When,  however,  we  examine 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  itself  so  as  to  find 
out  the  way  it  may  be  amended,  we  find  that  the  word 
"people"  has  a  third  meaning  still  different. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  article  providing  for  amend- 
ments of  the  Constitution,  we  find  that  Congress,  whenever 
two-thirds  of  both  houses  shall  deem  it  necessary,  shall 
propose  amendments,  or  on  the  application  to  the  legisla- 
ture of  two-thirds  of  the  several  states,  shall  call  a  con- 
vention for  proposing  amendments.  In  either  case  these 
amendments  shall  be  valid  when  ratified  by  the  legislatures 
of  three-fourths  of  the  several  states,  or  by  convention  in 
three-fourths  thereof,  as  one  or  the  other  mode  of  ratifica- 
tion may  be  proposed  by  Congress. 

We  find  here  a  provision  made  that  the  people  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  states  must  act,  not  as  a  unit,  but  in  groups, 
each  state  by  itself,  either  through  their  legislatures  or 
through  conventions.  The  term  "  The  people  of  the  United 
States,"  therefore,  is  used  in  a  sense  entirely  different  from 
its  ordinary  use.  The  vote  of  Nevada,  for  example,  would 
count  the  same  as  that  of  New  York,  even  though  the 
number  of  people  in  New  York  is  vastly  greater.  Our 
great  constitutional  conflicts  have  usually  turned  merely 
upon  the  interpretation  of  a  few  words  in  our  Constitution. 
We  can,  therefore,  not  be  too  careful  in  avoiding  misunder- 
standings. 

Even  in  the  countries  that  have  written  constitutions, 
we  must  find  the  complete  constitution  in  part  in  court 
decisions,  in  customs,  and  in  the  understanding  of  the 


CONSTITUTIONS  155 

people.  Possibly  we  must  go  even  further  and  say  that  the 
constitution  is  found  in  part  in  other  political  and  social 
institutions,  as,  for  example,  the  church  or  family.  In 
Russia,  the  power  that  rests  in  the  church  is  constitutional 
in  its  nature.  In  our  own  country  we  find  that  political 
parties  have  become  so  deeply  fixed  in  our  political  structure 
that  they  affect  our  civil  liberty,  and  consequently  they 
make  informally  a  part  of  our  Constitution. 

Our  Constitution  has  prescribed  the  way  in  which  the 
President  of  the  United  States  shall  be  elected.  It  is  not 
going  beyond  the  facts,  however,  to  say  that  in  reality  the 
change  of  custom  of  the  election  of  the  President,  brought 
about  by  the  action  of  political  parties,  has  amended  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  even  though  its  words 
remain  unchanged. 

A  short  time  ago  a  member  of  the  Republican  National 
Committee,  in  speaking  of  the  determination  of  the  place 
for  the  next  Republican  convention,  mentioned  certain 
statutes  which  provided  methods  of  election  of  delegates 
to  the  National  convention.  He  added  that  the  feeling  in 
the  convention  was  general  that  the  way  in  which  delegates 
should  be  chosen  was  something  with  which  the  statutes 
of  the  United  States  or  those  of  the  individual  states  should 
have  nothing  to  do;  that  political  parties  were  purely 
voluntary  organizations  and  ought  not  thus  to  be  inter- 
fered with  by  laws.  But  political  parties  have  become 
so  vital  a  part  of  our  whole  political  structure  that  it  is 
perhaps  wise  that  they  be  recognized  and  their  actions  more 
or  less  controlled.  If,  in  fact,  the  parties  have  become 
permanent  political  institutions,  it  is  no  longer  proper  to 
say  that  they  are  purely  voluntary  bodies  not  to  be  inter- 
fered with.     It  is  becoming  time  that  the  prescription  of 


156  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

custom  shall  be  recognized  in  law.  When  a  social  custom, 
or  political  custom,  has  become  so  firmly  established  that  it 
must  be  considered  in  the  making  of  laws  or  their  repealing, 
it  may  be  asked  whether  the  people  ought  not  to  be  morally 
bound  by  that  custom  if  they  wish  to  be  law-abiding 
citizens,  even  before  a  formal  law  has  compelled  their 
action. 

Many  written  constitutions,  especially  of  late  years, 
contain  provisions  that  are  not  at  all  in  the  nature  of  funda- 
mental laws  along  the  line  of  the  principles  that  have  just 
been  explained,  but  are  rather  of  the  nature  of  statutes  of 
minor  importance  which  the  people  from  distrust  of  their 
legislatures  have  put  into  their  constitutions.  For  example, 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  state  of  Illinois  we  note  that  no 
general  banking  law  shall  be  passed  without  the  referendum. 
This  provision  was  put  in  the  Constitution  soon  after  one 
of  the  great  panics  wherein  the  people  had  been  injured  by 
the  policies  of  the  banks.  The  result  has  been,  however, 
that  for  decades  that  state  was  not  able  to  get  a  good 
savings  bank  law  such  as  exists  in  most  of  the  Eastern 
states,  because  such  a  savings  bank  law  needed  to  be 
passed  upon  by  the  people  and  they  did  not  know  and  were 
not  likely  to  take  the  proper  time  and  interest  to  study 
the  details  of  a  good  savings  bank  act.  The  one  or  two 
acts  that  have  been  proposed  and  submitted  to  the  people 
by  the  legislature  have  been  voted  down,  because  they  did 
not  understand  the  subject  and  imagined  it  was  some  at- 
tack upon  the  banking  laws  and  that  they  had  better  not 
be  tampered  with. 

Of  a  somewhat  similar  nature  is  a  provision  in  the  last 
Constitution  of  the  state  of  New  York  in  reference  to 
forests.    The  result  has  been  that  there  can  be  no  scientific 


CONSTITUTIONS  157 

management  of  the  public  forests  of  the  state  of  New  York 
without  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  We  have 
probably  condemned  ourselves  for  a  series  of  decades  to 
the  misuse  of  our  forests. 

In  many  constitutions,  and  there  are  many  examples  of  a 
similar  nature,  there  is  a  provision  for  a  general  property 
tax  and-  practically  for  no  other.  By  this  provision  the 
people  have  secured  an  unscientific  system  of  taxation  and 
have  made  it  unnecessarily  difficult  to  secure  a  good  system. 
As  has  already  been  said  in  our  discussion  of  the  work  of  the 
legislature  and  of  the  executive,  detailed  laws  covering  the 
questions  of  taxation,  banking,  tariff,  or  anything  of  that 
nature,  demand  very  careful  study  and  discussion  by  ex- 
perts. When  constitutions  can  be  amended  only  by  refer- 
ence to  the  people,  they  should  not  contain  measures  of  such 
a  nature  that  they  cannot  receive  fair  and  careful  discussion, 
and  yet  many  of  our  constitutions  contain  such  provisions. 

In  the  new  Constitution  of  Oklahoma,  and  there  are 
similar  provisions  in  the  Constitutions  of  California  and 
other  states,  it  is  made  imperative  for  the  legislature  to 
provide  for  a  uniform  system  of  text-books  for  the  common 
schools  of  the  state.  California  provides  that  the  books 
shall  be  printed  by  the  state,  distributed  by  the  state,  and 
not  be  changed  oftener  than  once  in  four  years.  We  are 
all  in  sympathy  with  our  educational  work,  we  all  wish 
that  the  best  text-books  be  secured ;  but  provisions  of  that 
kind  in  a  constitution  simply  prevent  the  recognition  of 
changing  conditions,  so  that  they  practically  refuse  to  the 
children  in  many  cases  the  use  of  the  best  text-books. 
Such  matters  are  properly  the  subject  of  legislation;  they 
are  not  constitutional  in  nature. 

Again,  we  find  a  provision  that  the  legislature  shall 


158  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

provide  for  the  study  of  agriculture,  horticulture,  stock, 
and  the  domestic  sciences  in  the  common  schools  of  the 
states.  The  subjects  are  excellent ;  they  should  be  studied ; 
but  such  restrictions  should  not  be  placed  in  the  constitu- 
tion. Circumstances  may  change  in  such  a  way  that 
you  may  wish  to  modify  the  mode  of  study  decidedly  or 
add  much  to  the  provision.  If  the  constitution  prescribes 
them,  changes  are  difficult. 

The  sum  of  the  whole  matter  then  is  this :  we  ought  not  to 
put  into  a  constitution  measures  of  general  legislation 
that  are  so  complicated  in  their  nature  that  they  cannot  well 
be  understood  and  thoroughly  discussed  by  the  people  be- 
fore they  pass  upon  them ;  nor,  should  we  put  into  consti- 
tutions matters  that  are  likely  to  require  frequent  change. 

When,  however,  we  are  speaking  of  laws  that  are  really 
fundamental,  we  are  usually  speaking  of  those  that  the 
people  can  well  understand.  They  know,  for  example, 
whether  the  right  and  power  should  be  given  to  the  gov- 
ernment to  quarter  troops  upon  the  people,  whether  an 
executive  officer  or  judicial  officer  should  be  given  the 
right  to  search  a  private  house  without  a  specific  order 
from  a  court,  whether  they  wish  frequent  elections  of  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature.  Such  matters  the  people  can  wisely 
pass  upon,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  upon  some  such  ques- 
tions they  are  ready  to  fight  if  necessary  to  carry  those  pro- 
visions into  effect.  Laws  of  that  kind  will  have  the  people 
back  of  them. 

We  have  already  seen,  however,  in  other  connections,  that 
laws  which  do  not  have  the  understanding  and  support  of 
the  people  will  not  be  enforced.  We  have  said  that  laws 
of  no  value,  or  laws  that  are  not  enforceable,  ought  not  to 
be  on  the  statute  books.     How  much  more  emphatic  should 


CONSTITUTIONS  159 

the  statement  be  that  such  provisions  ought  not  to  be  in 
the  constitution. 

The  fundamental  laws  really  constitutional  in  their 
nature  need  to  change  only  a  very  little  as  the  decades 
go  by,  practically  not  at  all.  The  nature  of  human  liber- 
ties, the  form  of  the  organization  of  the  government,  the  main 
provisions  of  the  suffrage,  or  the  most  general  functions 
of  the  different  departments  of  the  government,  —  these 
are  fundamental  matters  which  touch  the  state  and  are  not 
likely  to  be  often  changed.  If  we  put  only  fundamental 
laws  into  the  constitution,  we  shall  secure  a  constitution  that 
will  require  amendment  only  rarely.  Most  of  the  changes 
needed  to  meet  the  shifting  conditions  of  the  country, 
if  the  constitution  is  of  the  right  type,  may  be  made 
by  perfectly  proper  decisions  of  the  courts.  Only  when 
amendments  of  a  somewhat  sweeping  nature  are  required, 
such  as,  for  example,  the  abolition  of  slavery,  shall  we 
need  a  constitutional  change.  Under  circumstances  of  that 
kind  there  will  be  enough  of  a  change  in  the  sentiment  of 
the  people  to  demand  a  modification  of  the  constitution, 
and  the  amendment  can  then  easily  enough  be  made. 

In  summary  then  we  may  say,  that  to  secure  a  constitu- 
tion that  will  not  be  unwise,  or  one  subject  to  continual 
amendment,  we  must  put  into  it  only  essential,  fundamental 
things.  The  student  of  constitutions,  written  as  well  as 
unwritten,  who  wishes  to  understand  those  constitutions 
in  spirit  as  well  as  in  letter,  must  study  not  merely  the  text 
of  the  constitution,  the  old  law  books,  and  the  decisions  of 
the  courts,  but  also  the  customs,  the  social  and  political 
institutions,  the  whole  civic  structure  by  which  the  judg- 
ments of  the  courts  are  swayed  and  by  which  the  lives  of 
the  people  are  controlled. 


X 

INTERNATIONAL    RELATIONS 

So  far  in  our  studies  we  have  discussed  the  principles 
of  politics  as  we  find  them  developed  in  practical  life 
within  our  own  country  and  in  others  similarly  situated. 
In  the  concluding  chapter,  we  shall  direct  our  vision  out- 
ward, considering  first  the  question  of  the  expansion  of  our 
country  beyond  its  former  limits,  a  process  which  has  affected 
our  international  relations,  and  beyond  that,  the  principles 
of  our  politics  in  matters  international. 

The  United  States  Government  from  its  foundation  has 
occupied  a  very  influential  and  a  very  advanced  position 
in  the  history  of  international  law.  Possibly  no  other 
country  has  done  more  to  promote  justice  in  international 
relations,  to  lessen  the  horrors  of  war,  and  especially  to 
adopt  means  for  the  prevention  of  war. 

At  the  beginning  of  our  Government  Washington  en- 
deavored to  secure  for  us  the  best  methods  of  keeping  peace 
with  other  nations,  and  laid  down  the  principle  of  avoiding 
entangling  alliances  with  Europe,  simply  because  such 
alliances  would  inevitably  sometimes  draw  us  into  war. 
Of  course,  besides  the  general  policy  that  we  have  followed 
to  avoid  complications  arising  in  Europe,  our  geographical 
situation  has  been  most  helpful.  Separated  as  we  are 
from  Europe  by  an  ocean,  we  need  not  fear  invasion  by 
any  European  country.  The  isolation  that  has  protected 
us  has  made  alliances  unnecessary  and  has  enabled  us  to 
save  the  expense  of  a  great  standing  army. 

160 


INTERNATIONAL   RELATIONS  161 

Almost  from  the  foundation  of  our  Government,  how- 
ever, we  note  that  our  forefathers  felt,  as  practically 
all  other  strong  peoples  have  felt,  the  necessity  of 
expansion.  That  is  a  perfectly  natural  ambition.  In 
most  cases  we  may  criticize  the  methods  followed  by 
nations  in  their  expansion,  but  it  is  practically  inevitable 
that  an  ambitious  people  will  take  steps  in  that  direction. 
At  first  our  forefathers  were  simply  a  small  band  of  settlers 
on  the  Atlantic  coast,  but  it  was  inevitable  that  they  should 
press  out  into  the  territory  of  the  Indians  and  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  Indians.  In  some  instances  the  treaties  made 
were  just,  in  many  instances  they  were  unjust.  But  just 
or  unjust,  it  was  inevitable  that  with  the  instincts  that  our 
forefathers  had,  the  time  would  come  when  they  should 
see  that  they  needed  more  territory  and  when  they  would 
take  it. 

People  with  the  keenest  conception  of  justice  have  never 
questioned  the  fact  that  the  whites  of  America  were  going 
to  take  the  land  of  the  Indians.  The  only  question  of  dis- 
pute has  been  the  way  in  which  they  take  it.  We  shall  all 
agree  that  the  proper  method  was  to  buy  these  lands  or 
to  secure  them  by  some  other  peaceful  contract  with  the  In- 
dians. But  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  writer  competent  to 
speak  has  ever  suggested  that  it  would  be  expected  that 
our  people  would  permit  the  Indians  to  say  that  they  would 
not  let  us  have  the  lands.  They  realized  that  we  must 
have  them ;  it  was  simply  a  question  of  how  we  got  them. 

The  question  came  up  again  in  a  somewhat  different  way 
at  the  time  of  the  French  and  Indian  War.  The  British 
were  settled  on  the  Atlantic  coast  south  of  Canada.  The 
French  had  been  extending  their  rule  not  only  across  the 
northern  border  of  the  British,  but  west  through  the  western 


162  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

part  of  New  York  and  then  south  close  behind  the  Alleghany 
range.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  if  the  British  had 
not  resisted  and  pushed  forward  into  the  territory  claimed 
by  the  French,  they  would  have  found  themselves  practically 
limited  to  the  Atlantic  seaboard.  The  British  population 
were  growing  and  energetic,  and  they  were  determined  to 
have  what  would  be  expected  of  such  a  type  of  settlers. 
The  French  and  Indian  War  was  practically  as  inevitable 
under  the  circumstances  as  was  the  last  Russo-Japanese 
War,  or  that  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  States. 
When  the  problem  of  slavery  arose  in  America  with  inter- 
ests strong  on  both  sides,  and  with  no  likelihood  of  either 
section  giving  way,  the  only  question  was,  whether  some 
way  could  be  found  by  which  the  interests  of  both  could  be 
conserved  without  war.  Such  a  solution  would  have  been 
better ;  it  was  hardly  to  be  expected. 

In  many  cases  when  a  country  wishes  to  expand  its  ter- 
ritory, the  geographical  conditions  are  such  that  war  is 
inevitable.  Two  years  before  the  Russo-Japanese  War, 
in  a  conversation  held  with  one  of  the  leading  men  of 
Japan,  he  said  in  substance:  — 

"We  shall  have  war  with  Russia;  I  do  not  doubt  it.  I 
wish  there  were  some  way  to  avoid  it,  but  I  see  none.  The 
only  question  is,  when."  Then,  in  order  to  emphasize  the 
situation  and  clinch  his  argument,  he  took  a  map,  showed 
the  geographical  situation,  and  continued:  "Russia  has 
Manchuria  and  has  the  ambition  to  control  Corea.  We 
cannot  permit  her  to  have  Corea ;  our  very  national  exist- 
ence is  at  stake.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  control  the  strait 
between  Corea  and  Japan,  that  will  cut  off  the  Russian  port 
of  Vladivostock  from  Port  Arthur  and  will  make  it  impos- 
sible for  the  Russians  to  have  free  commerce  between  those 


INTERNATIONAL   RELATIONS  163 

ports  and  the  freedom  of  sending  their  warships  from  one 
port  to  the  other.  That  they  will  feel  they  must  have. 
In  consequence,  without  the  slightest  spirit  of  unfriendliness 
towards  Russia,  war  between  Russia  and  Japan  is  inevitable 
from  the  geographical  situation." 

It  was  a  question  of  expansion.  Russia  was  occupying 
Manchuria ;  she  wanted  and  intended  to  have  an  open  port 
on  the  Pacific.  Japan  could  not  permit  Russia  to  expand 
in  that  way  without  endangering  her  own  existence.  Japan, 
too,  had  intended  to  expand  into  Corea,  and  Russia  could 
not  occupy  the  same  territory.     War  had  to  come. 

Similar  reasoning  explains  the  French  and  Indian  War 
as  has  been  intimated.  The  French  had  determined  to 
hold  the  territory  that  the  British  felt  they  must  have. 
It  was  simply  a  question  of  which  side  could  win. 

After  the  French  and  Indian  War  and  the  foundation  of 
the  United  States,  the  country  felt  in  the  same  way  the 
necessity  of  going  still  further,  and  the  Louisiana  purchase 
was  made.  No  person  was  ever  more  bitterly  opposed 
towards  stretching  the  Constitution  than  Jefferson  was. 
Nevertheless,  he  felt  we  must  have  the  western  territory; 
that  the  welfare  of  the  country  demanded  it. 

The  feeling  was  the  same  when  we  acquired  Texas  and 
California;  it  was  perfectly  natural  that  we  should  have 
them  both.  Everyone  feels  now  that  these  territories  had 
to  be  secured  in  some  way  or  other.  Many  object  to  the 
way  in  which  we  secured  Texas.  The  methods  of  our  Govern- 
ment seem  wrong  to  many  of  us,  but  in  practical  politics  we 
must  deal  with  human  nature  as  it  is.  We  may  be  perfectly 
sure  that  the  United  States  would  have  that  territory. 
It  was  simply  a  question  of  the  method  of  acquiring  it. 
We   quite  possibly   made   a  mistake  in  the  method  for 


164  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

which  we  have  paid  a  penalty  in  the  subtle  form  of  a 
weakening  of  moral  fiber. 

The  question  of  what  constitutes  right  and  wrong  in  the 
acquirement  of  territory  is  a  subject  still  open  to  debate 
and  one  regarding  which  it  is  difficult  to  reach  a  conclusion. 
Some  persons  say  the  earth  belongs  to  those  who  can  make 
the  best  use  of  it,  and  thus  justify  the  seizure  of  territory 
occupied  by  others,  claiming  that  those  that  take  it  are  the 
ones  to  make  the  best  use  of  it.  In  that  way  they  justify 
our  taking  land  from  the  Indians ;  the  seizure  of  territory 
from  the  French,  because  the  British  were  better  adapted  to 
promote  civilization.  The  French  have  a  different  view, 
thinking  they  are  better  adapted  to  promote  civilization. 
To  them  French  civilization  is  the  best.  The  argument  is 
one  that  is  usually  not  stated  so  absolutely  as  I  have  stated 
it,  but  it  is  an  argument  still  felt  and  a  point  made  by 
statesmen  very  generally  when  it  comes  to  a  question  of 
practical  politics  regarding  the  extending  of  territory  — the 
earth  belongs  to  those  who  make  the  best  use  of  it. 

The  nation  that  does  the  work  of  expansion,  the  one  that 
is  strongest  for  the  time  being,  feels  that  it  can  make  better 
use  of  its  opportunities  than  can  the  weaker  nation  that 
must  yield.  Moreover,  we  must  recognize  a  certain  ele- 
ment of  truth  in  that  point  of  view.  The  statement  can- 
not be  made  absolutely,  but  other  things  being  equal,  it  is 
likely  to  be  true  that  the  stronger  nation  is  the  one  that 
probably  will  make  the  greater  advance  in  civilization 
and  probably  will  make  the  greater  advance  in  any  territory 
that  it  takes.  There  are  exceptions,  but  generally  speaking, 
the  nation  with  the  greatest  power  is  likely  to  be  the  one 
with  the  best  means,  and  perhaps  the  strongest  ambition 
to  advance  civilization  from  the  modern  point  of  view. 


INTERNATIONAL   RELATIONS  165 

Of  course,  we  know  perfectly  well  that  the  Chinese 
consider  their  form  of  civilization  better  than  ours,  but  until 
China  secures  more  power  she  is  not  likely  to  make  good  her 
claim,  however  well  founded  in  certain  directions  it  may 
be.  Many  people  believe  that  Ancient  Greece  had  the 
highest  type  of  civilization  ever  known  in  history,  and  the 
fact  that  Greece  fell  under  the  control  of  Rome  is  thought 
no  sign  that  the  Romans  were  the  better  nation.  They 
think  it  a  misfortune  to  the  world  at  large  that  Greece  was 
conquered  by  Rome.  But  on  the  whole,  we  shall  probably 
find  it  true  that  the  powerful  nation,  the  conquerors, 
have  been  the  most  progressive ;  and  that  in  consequence,  if 
we  grant  the  principle  laid  down  before,  there  is  some 
justification  for  the  success  of  the  stronger. 

Whatever  our  view,  however,  of  the  methods  of  nations,  it 
is  a  fact  that  those  which  have  the  tendency  to  expand 
place  no  limitation  upon  that  tendency  except  that  imposed 
by  the  resisting  force  of  another  nation,  usually  one  of 
much  the  same  type  of  civilization. 

Out  of  this  trend  towards  expansion  and  the  desire  to 
protect  our  free  government  and  our  methods  of  politics 
as  well  as  our  freedom  from  the  need  of  great  armaments,  or 
alliances  with  Europe  if  the  European  system  were  brought 
to  the  Western  Continent,  grew  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 
Practically  stated,  that  doctrine  is  this,  that  the  Western 
Continent  is  not  open  to  further  occupation  by  European 
powers  and  that  we  shall  not  permit  any  European  power 
to  take  back  or  secure  any  of  the  South  American  states 
that  have  obtained  their  independence.  We  feel  that  it 
is  safer  for  us  to  avoid  all  alliances  as  well  as  quarrels  that 
would  almost  certainly  come  if  any  more  strong  European 
powers   established  themselves   on  this   continent.     We 


166  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

believe  we  can  accomplish  this  result  most  easily  by  pre- 
venting them  from  coming.  If  all  the  peoples  on  this 
continent  have  practically  the  same  form  of  republican 
government,  they  are  much  less  likely  to  get  into  trouble 
than  if  a  European  power  with  monarchical  tendencies 
should  come  here.    That  is  our  justification  for  the  doctrine. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  has  been  generally  accepted  by 
our  different  political  parties  with  comparatively  little 
discussion.  Two  of  the  most  striking  instances  in  which 
it  has  been  enforced  are,  in  Mexico  shortly  after  the  close 
of  the  Civil  War  under  a  Republican  administration,  and 
again  in  the  Venezuela  controversy  with  Great  Britain 
under  President  Cleveland,  a  Democratic  administration. 
The  parties  agree  substantially  regarding  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  doctrine.  It  is  upheld,  that  we  may  keep  out 
of  trouble. 

Out  of  our  war  with  Spain  came  new  troubles  of  inter- 
national significance  different  from  any  we  had  had  before, 
and  much  more  important  than  a  mere  acquisition  of 
territory.  It  is  not  desirable  here  to  go  into  a  discussion  of 
the  causes  of  the  war  with  Spain  or  our  methods  of  dealing 
with  that  country.  The  war  came ;  the  result  has  been  new 
problems. 

The  problem  in  connection  with  Cuba  we  need  not  dwell 
upon.  It  will  probably  be  several  years  before  we  know 
the  result  of  our  policy  there.  So  far,  our  action  seems 
to  have  been  one  of  the  most  disinterested  of  history. 
Whether  it  will  prove  so  ultimately,  we  cannot  yet  tell. 

It  will  be  interesting  to  note  the  opinion  of  some  influ- 
ential Cubans  upon  that  point.  About  the  time  that  Cuba 
was  framing  its  first  constitution,  an  influential  member 
of  the  revolutionary  party  came  to  New  York  to  discuss 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS  167 

with  some  of  the  Cuban  sympathizers  the  question  of  the 
form  of  government.  In  reply  to  a  question  asked  as  to 
what  the  Cubans  expected  ultimately  and  what  their  final 
wish  regarding  their  country  was,  this  man,  one  of  the 
leading  Cuban  patriots,  said  in  substance:  " Ultimately, 
I  think,  we  shall  have  our  country  annexed  to  the  United 
States.  Judging  from  our  past  history,  we  shall  want 
to  go  into  the  United  States."  Then  he  added,  "In  the 
meantime,  we  wish  to  go  ahead  independently.  We  have 
been  saying  for  many  years  that  we  will  govern  ourselves. 
We  have  been  fighting  for  ten  years  in  order  that  we  may 
govern  ourselves.  We  want  to  show  the  world  that  we 
can  govern  ourselves.  But  as  soon  as  that  has  been  clearly 
shown,  I  believe  that  it  will  be  better  for  our  people  that 
we  should  come  into  the  United  States."  That  was  his 
view  at  that  time.  I  am  not  sure  that  historical  events 
will  show  that  he  has  been  right  throughout. 

In  the  acquirement  of  the  Philippines  there  came  under 
our  jurisdiction  a  type  of  people  different  in  race,  in  civili- 
zation, in  methods  of  government,  and  in  political  and  social 
habits,  so  that  we  found  upon  our  hands  a  new  and  very 
complicated  problem.  In  our  administration  of  the  Philip- 
pines so  far,  we  have  set  an  example  to  the  world,  good  or  bad. 
We  are  trying  to  make  the  Filipinos  fit  for  self-government 
by  dealing  justly  with  them,  educating  them,  giving  them 
an  opportunity  of  practising  self-government,  first  locally 
and  then  in  their  central  government.  No  other  nation 
has  ever  attempted  an  experiment  of  that  kind  to  anything 
like  the  same  extent.  The  nearest  approach  that  we  see 
is  the  experiment  Great  Britain  has  been  making  in  Egypt 
within  the  last  few  years.  So  long  as  Lord  Cromer  was  in 
charge  of  the  administration,  with  the  consent  of  Great 


168  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

Britain,  he  was  trying  to  develop  the  individual  Egyptian 
so  that  he  might  be  successful  in  government,  perhaps 
ultimately  be  able  to  govern  himself.  But  his  plan  was  not 
so  direct  as  is  our  policy  in  the  Philippines,  nor  was  it  on  so 
large  a  scale.  Whether  ultimately  this  educational  train- 
ing in  self-government  will  lead  the  Filipinos  to  become 
independent,  or  to  control  merely  their  own  local  affairs 
independently  as  do  our  states,  while  remaining  absolutely 
under  the  control  of  the  United  States  in  the  central  and 
international  affairs  —  which  of  these  two  courses  will 
most  nearly  secure  justice  and  the  best  result  for  the  world, 
only  the  future  can  settle.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
whenever  in  the  course  of  time  they  become  fit  for  self- 
government,  they  will  have  it  to  whatever  extent  they 
desire  it.  You  will  recall  that  the  Cuban  patriot  said  that 
the  Cubans  wanted  to  show  the  world  that  they  could 
govern  themselves,  but  that  they  did  not  wish  ultimately 
to  do  so.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Filipinos  will  have  a 
similar  feeling. 

The  effect  of  our  work  in  the  Philippines  has  an  inter- 
national bearing  in  other  ways.  Our  course  of  action 
there  is  felt  strongly  in  other  countries  that  have  depen- 
dencies among  peoples  of  different  races.  Not  long  ago  one 
of  our  prominent  officials  in  the  Philippines,  who  had  come 
back  to  the  United  States  on  leave,  said  that  he  had  been 
questioned  by  the  English  and  Dutch  regarding  our  work 
in  the  Philippines.  Earlier  they  were  disposed  to  laugh  at 
our  policies  as  simply  an  experiment  of  Americans  who  had 
no  experience;  but  now  they  had  heard  so  much  of  the 
progress  of  our  educational  work  that  they  were  eager  to 
learn  more,  particularly  since  the  natives  in  India  and 
Java  wanted  their  government  to  do  for  them  what  the 


INTERNATIONAL   RELATIONS  169 

United  States  were  doing  for  the  Filipinos.  The  English 
and  Dutch  were  rinding  it  worth  their  while,  therefore,  to 
examine  our  work  and  see  if  they  could  not  learn  something 
from  us,  as  earlier  they  thought  we  ought  to  learn  from  them. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  experience  of  Great  Britain, 
and  that  of  other  countries  with  dependencies,  have  been 
of  decided  benefit  to  us  as  comparative  studies.  But  we 
have  been  somewhat  daring  and  have  gone  farther  than  they 
in  certain  ways,  and  it  is  possible  that  they  ultimately  may 
learn  from  us.  • 

The  United  States  is  also  to  be  credited  with  much  influ- 
ence in  changing  diplomatic  methods  during  the  last  hun- 
dred years.  In  the  days  of  Machiavelli,  and  even  down 
to  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution,  it  was  looked  upon 
as  a  chief  accomplishment  of  a  successful  diplomat  that  he 
could  lie  smoothly  and  successfully.  It  was  his  business 
to  conceal  the  purposes  of  his  own  government  and  to 
deceive  the  government  to  which  he  was  accredited.  He 
was  to  learn  all  he  could,  by  fair  means  or  foul,  in  reference 
to  the  intentions  of  the  court  at  which  he  resided,  and  he 
was  to  prevent  that  government  from  finding  out  anything 
about  his  own  country.  That  spirit  has  not  entirely  gone ; 
it  will  probably  long  remain.  Nevertheless,  there  has  been 
a  decided  advance  along  that  line.  Perhaps  the  United 
States  should  be  given  credit  more  than  any  other  country 
for  this  change  and  for  adopting  the  practice  of  carrying 
on  our  international  relations  in  a  way  that  is  against  the 
earlier  proverbial  training. 

A  strong,  ambitious  people  is  bound  to  extend  its  territory 
unless  prevented  by  other  nations  of  substantially  the 
same  type  and  strength.  It  is  regrettable,  but  a  fact,  that 
to  carry  out  these  plans,  things  will  be  done  that  cannot  be 


170  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

justified  from  a  moral  point  of  view,  if  in  political  questions, 
and  especially  in  international  questions,  the  test  is  to  be 
that  of  private  morals.  An  individual  who  lies  for  his 
own  sake  in  private  business,  we  all  despise,  but  men  in 
public  life  sometimes  feel  that  they  are  justified  in  de- 
ceiving, and  they  put  their  argument  in  this  way :  — 

They  cite  as  an  example  the  practice  of  war.  They  say 
that  whenever  opposing  armies  stand  face  to  face,  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  commander  on  either  side  to  mislead  his 
opponent;  otherwise,  it  is  likely  to  cost  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  lives  and  probably  insure  the  success  of  the 
opponent.  Deception  in  war,  they  say,  is  not  merely  ex- 
cusable, but  right  and  praiseworthy. 

Then  they  question  whether  it  is  not  true  that  in  other 
dealings  between  nations  throughout  the  world,  we  should 
seek  to  accomplish  what  is  best  for  our  own  country  and  to 
do  that  in  the  way  that  is  least  cruel  and  objectionable. 
If  a  diplomat,  they  say,  by  misleading  the  other  country, 
by  lying  deliberately,  can  secure  his  ends,  how  much  better 
this  than  going  to  war.  Surely  lying  is  a  less  serious  crime 
than  murder;  surely  a  lying  diplomacy  is  more  laudable 
than  a  declaration  of  war  !  If  the  end  is  to  be  accomplished, 
is  it  not  better  to  take  the  lesser  evil  ?  That  is  the  line  of 
argument  generally  followed. 

The  American  policy  has  been  generally  frank  and  truth- 
ful, but  there  are  comparatively  few  statesmen  that  do 
not  at  times  adopt  a  policy  not  altogether  frank.  Even 
some  writers  on  politics  speak  about  as  plainly  as  I  have 
done.  International  practice  at  the  present  time,  while 
much  more  truthful  than  it  used  to  be,  still  employs  a 
great  deal  of  deception  in  many  things.  The  excuse  for  it 
is  that  the  ruler  does  what  he  considers  best  for  the  welfare 


INTERNATIONAL   RELATIONS  171 

of  his  own  country.  He  will  resort  to  falsehood  if  by  so 
doing  he  can  protect  his  people  better  than  by  telling  the 
truth  and  perhaps  incurring  the  risk  of  war. 

The  remedy  for  this  state  of  affairs  is  practically  the  same 
as  in  private  life.  Until  we  had  stable  governments,  if  an 
enemy  injured  us,  there  was  no  court  to  appeal  to.  We 
defended  ourselves  until  we  had  a  police  force  that  made 
our  lives  safe.  As  long  as  each  man  had  to  protect  his  own 
life,  he  felt  entirely  justified  in  lying  in  order  to  save  his 
life.  The  same  argument  is  still  used  in  international 
affairs ;  it  is  a  choice  of  the  lesser  evil.  We  have  now  come 
to  a  position  where  we  consider  it  dishonorable  to  do  such 
things  in  our  private  life,  because  we  do  not  need  to;  we 
appeal  to  the  courts  as  an  arbiter  to  settle  disputes. 

Whenever  in  international  affairs  we  shall  find  an  ar- 
biter that  can  settle  disputes  between  nations  and  do  jus- 
tice, diplomatic  lying  will  also  disappear.  The  tendency 
towards  the  disappearance  of  that  custom  strengthens  with 
the  tendency  towards  perpetual  peace. 

A  number  of  forces  are  acting  together  to  strengthen  this 
tendency.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  the  enormous  cost  of 
armies.  Something  like  six  millions  of  people  are  in  arms 
in  Europe,  all  withdrawn  from  industrial  pursuits  and  sup- 
ported in  idleness  as  a  burden  upon  the  community  at  large. 
It  is  probably  a  low  estimate  that  Europe  is  expending 
regularly  from  six  to  seven  billions  of  dollars  a  year  simply 
on  standing  armies.  Nevertheless,  the  conditions  are  such 
that  this  expenditure  must  be  met.  If  any  of  the  large 
European  nations  should  abandon  its  army,  its  existence 
would  be  in  danger.  There  can  be  no  reduction  in  armed 
force  until  there  is  united  action,  and  that  is  not  yet 
possible.     Not  simply  the  expense  of  the  standing  army  in 


172  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF   POLITICS 

time  of  peace,  but  the  destruction  in  time  of  war  likewise 
makes  every  nation  hesitate  to  run  the  risk  of  war. 

Again,  the  economic  competition  of  nations  one  with 
another  is  tending  in  the  same  direction.  Whenever  the 
people  in  European  countries  feel  strongly  enough  that  the 
burden  of  their  standing  armies  puts  them  at  too  serious  a 
disadvantage  with  the  United  States  in  the  world's  markets, 
they  will  try  and  find  some  way  to  reduce  their  armaments. 
In  reality  that  was  the  argument  of  the  Czar  in  calling  the 
Hague  Conference,  and  every  statesman  recognizes  the  force 
of  it. 

A  movement  in  the  same  direction  is  seen  in  the  business 
alliances  and  the  interrelations  of  business  men.  Commerce 
knows  no  national  boundaries ;  and  when  business  interests 
become  so  involved  and  intricate  that  the  more  important 
business  men  in  the  community  feel  they  cannot  afford  to 
have  war,  their  influence  will  be  very  great  towards  pre- 
venting it.  Many  people  —  I  am  one  of  them  —  were  little 
alarmed  last  year  over  the  talk  of  war  between  the  United 
States  and  Japan.  Neither  country  wanted  war  to  begin 
with.  There  was  no  sufficient  cause  for  war  in  the  minds  of 
the  men  controlling  the  country.  But  besides  that,  the 
business  men  of  the  world  who  had  money  to  loan  would 
not  have  been  disposed  to  permit  a  war.  Japan  could  not 
have  entered  upon  a  war  of  that  nature  without  large  loans. 
Few  people  would  have  been  willing  to  loan  her  money  at 
that  time  to  fight  the  United  States.  There  would  have 
been  too  much  risk. 

For  the  last  century  there  have  been  other  influences  of 
importance  tending  to  lessen  the  likelihood  of  war.  The 
Roman  Catholic  church,  one  of  the  most  wonderful  organiza- 
tions that  civilized  nations  have  ever  seen,  has  ramifications 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS  173 

in  all  civilized  countries,  and  the  unifying  force  of  a  group 
of  men  so  intelligent,  so  well  controlled,  so  wisely  guided 
as  are  the  rulers  from  top  to  bottom  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
church,  has  a  powerful  tendency  leading  towards  peace. 

The  growth  of  great  states  has  a  like  influence.  Great 
Britain  was  first  a  group  of  little  independent  communities 
continually  fighting  with  one  another;  when  it  became 
one  nation,  war  ceased.  The  same  is  true  with  France, 
Italy,  and  Russia. 

In  connection  with  the  United  States  and  Germany, 
there  is  another  idea  of  great  importance,  that  of  federation. 
The  United  States  could  never  have  been  a  single  state  made 
by  conquest.  It  was  made  into  a  federation  out  of  thirteen 
different  states,  each  of  which  gave  up  some  powers  that 
should  be  common  to  all,  while  retaining  most  of  the  powers 
that  affected  its  local  affairs,  and  that  after  all  touched 
most  closely  the  daily  lives  of  the  people. 

Under  this  idea  of  federation,  in  which  a  state  retains 
its  autonomy  in  local  affairs  and  gives  up  its  powers  only  in 
matters  common  to  all,  the  United  States  was  formed,  and 
that  form  of  organization  and  that  idea  soon  became 
popular.  Germany  was  organized  on  that  basis ;  Canada, 
Australia,  and  South  Africa  have  been  so  organized,  and 
even  to  some  extent  the  same  idea  is  bringing  together 
the  entire  British  Empire.  If  the  different  colonies  of 
England  come  together  into  a  Greater  Britain,  it  will  be 
through  a  federation  in  which  each  one  will  have  its 
separate  rights  of  government  recognized. 

In  the  interests  of  peace  likewise  there  have  been  strong 
alliances.  In  the  time  succeeding  Napoleon,  the  Holy 
Alliance  tended  to  prevent  quarrels.  We  have  had  the 
Concert  of  Powers;  five  or  six  of  the  leading  nations  of 


174  THE   PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS 

Europe  have  several  times  acted  in  matters  of  common 
interest.  Near  the  close  of  the  Greco-Turkish  War  they 
insisted  that  peace  be  made.  So  it  is  in  many  instances 
that  have  come  up.  Concerted  action  among  leading 
states  may  practically  determine  peace  instead  of  war. 

The  principle  of  arbitration,  for  which  the  United  States 
again  has  probably  done  most,  at  first  in  the  settlement  of  the 
Alabama  claims  after  the  Civil  War,  is  accomplishing  much. 
We  might  possibly  have  accomplished  greater  immediate 
results  at  the  time  provision  was  made  for  the  settlement 
of  the  Alabama  claims  by  accepting  an  offer  of  federation 
and  annexing  Canada,  an  opportunity  that  we  unwisely  let 
escape.  But  the  example  of  arbitration  has  gone  farther 
and  nations  are  now  making  special  treaties  to  submit  all 
questions  to  arbitration  instead  of  leaving  their  settlement 
to  the  arbitrament  of  war. 

The  right  of  intervention  for  the  sake  of  humanity  is 
coming  to  be  recognized  somewhat  more  than  earlier. 
Even  in  the  late  Russo-Japanese  War  there  was  a  general 
agreement  to  restrict  the  field  of  operations.  All  such 
steps  are  in  the  direction  of  peace. 

As  a  result  of  the  first  Hague  Conference  a  general  court 
was  established  in  the  Hague  Tribunal,  and  in  many  in- 
stances its  efficiency  has  already  been  shown.  The  right  of 
intervention  in  the  settlement  of  disputes,  such  as  that 
between  Russia  and  England  over  the  North  Sea  trouble, 
and  incidents  in  the  Russo-Japanese  War,  show  how  far- 
reaching  this  may  become.  Without  that  intervention,  it 
seemed  practically  certain  that  Russia  and  Great  Britain 
must  fight.  This  international  court  may  be  said  to  be  well 
enough  established  now,  so  that  we  may  be  sure  it  will  settle 
in  the  future  a  large  proportion  of  international  disputes. 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS  175 

But  beyond  the  settlement  of  disputes  in  international 
matters,  a  general  congress  is  needed  to  provide  in  advance 
rules  concerning  international  affairs.  In  the  federation 
of  our  different  colonies  into  the  United  States,  we  estab- 
lished not  only  a  tribunal  but  also  a  congress  to  make  laws 
on  matters  of  general  interest,  and  we  established  an  execu- 
tive to  enforce  these  laws.  The  last  Hague  Conference 
adjourned  with  an  agreement  that  it  should  meet  again. 
This  was  another  step  towards  the  establishment  of  a 
general  international  congress  that  shall  meet  regularly 
from  time  to  time  to  consider  international  questions  that 
otherwise  may  become  the  subject  of  international  dispute, 
and  thus  to  provide  in  advance  for  the  settlement  of  the 
most  important  questions  of  world  interest. 

Ten  years  ago  the  hope  of  perpetual  peace  seemed  a 
kind  of  millennial  vision.  The  events  of  the  last  ten  years 
have  brought  it  immeasurably  nearer,  largely  on  account 
of  the  two  Hague  Conferences,  the  one  establishing  a 
tribunal,  the  second  taking  the  first  step  towards  a  general 
international  congress.  Whenever  this  general  congress 
begins  to  meet  regularly,  the  most  difficult  and  the  most 
important  step  will  have  been  taken  towards  a  world  federa- 
tion. The  world  federation  will  preserve  the  educative 
democratic  principle  of  training  practically  every  man  in 
politics  by  giving  him  an  opportunity  of  taking  part  in  the 
management  of  local  affairs  in  the  community  in  which 
he  may  live,  while  it  will  also  establish  a  world-embracing 
federal  congress  to  make  such  provision  for  the  control  of 
international  affairs  that  it  will  ultimately  secure  perpetual 
peace. 


INDEX 


Absolute  monarchy,  An,  42 

Act,  Significance  of  court  declar- 
ing an,  unconstitutional,  135-37; 
courts  in  no  other  country  have 
such  power,  137-38 

Acts,  Very  few,  committed,  without 
doer   first    excusing   himself,    26 

Administration,  110-28;  the  chief 
executive,  110-17;  subordinates, 
117-20,  124-26;  work  of,  like 
that  of  a  great  corporation,  120; 
the  President's  Cabinet,  121-22; 
clerical  positions  and  the  civil 
service,  122-24;  centralization  in, 
126-27;  responsibility  of  branches 
of,  127;  private  enterprise  and 
public  control,  127-28 

Administrative  courts,  Special,  in 
Europe,    140-41 

Aerial  navigation  and  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Law,  133 

Age  qualification  of  voters,   47 

Alabama  claims  settled  by  arbitra- 
tion, 174 

Alliances,  Foreign,  unnecessary  for 
the  U.S.,    160,    165 

Alliances,  Strong,  in  the  interests  of 
peace,  173-74 

American  citizen,  The  ideal  of  the, 
4-5 

American  people,  A  Swiss  banker's 
opinion  of  the,    138 

Anglo-Saxon  race,  Institutions  of 
the,  not  adapted  to  the  Orient,  19 

Anti-suffragists,  Argument  of  the,  54 

Arbitration,  The  principle  of,  174—75 

Aristocracy,    An,    42 

Armies,  Enormous  cost  of,   171-72 

Army  officers  on  the  canteen  in  the 
army,  100-1 

Athenian  statesmen,  Pericles  on  the 
ideal  of  the,  3 


Australia  organized  through  federa- 
tion, 173 

Austria,  Woman  suffrage  in,  54; 
class  representation  in,  82 

Ballot  reform  the  result  of  change 
in  public  opinion,   94 

Belgium,  Proportional  representa- 
tion in,  84,  85,  87 

Bismarck  inspired  personal  devotion, 
37;  directed  vote  of  government 
officials,  53 

Blaine,  James  G.,  a  magnetic  leader, 
37 

Boss,  Influence  of  the,  23 ;  controlled 
by  public  sentiment,  25;  animated 
by  selfishness,  29;  gets  his  power 
from  the  inertia  of  voters,   34 

Bribery  prevented  by  proportional 
representation,   86 

British  Empire,  Federation  in  the, 
173 

Brittany,  The  peasant  of,  calls  upon 
the    state,  6 

Brockway,  Z.  R.,  on  criminals,  26— 
27 

Buchanan,  James,  Influence  of  per- 
sonality of,  on  the  state,   13 

Bundesrath,  Most  important  bills 
introduced  in  the,  43 

Burgess,  Prof.  John  W.,  on  a  com- 
plete constitution,   146-49 

Burke,  Edmund,  on  representation, 
77-78 

Business,  The  ruling  motives  in,  the 
same  as  in  politics,  30;  mental 
inertia  or  habit  in,  34 

Business  conditions,  Judges  ignorant 
of,   134-35 

Business  interests  affect  party  mem- 
bership, 67-68 ;  international, 
make   for  peace,    172 


177 


178 


INDEX 


Cabinet,  The  British,   150-51 

Cabinet,  The  President's,  should  be 
made  up  from  his  own  party,  74, 
120;  should  represent  different 
sections,    121-22 

California,  Length  of  constitution  of, 
144;  text-book  provision  in,  157; 
the   acquisition   of,    163 

Canada,  Opportunity  for  annexing, 
lost,   174 

Candidates  usually  selected  by 
leaders,  46;  type  of,  improved, 
70;     for   political   offices,    73-74 

Canteen,  The,  in  the  army,  100-1 

Caucuses  or  conventions,  46 

Cavour  inspired  personal  devotion, 
37 

Centralization  needed  in  executive 
department,  126 

Child  labor,  Restriction  of,  in  North 
and  South,  96-97;  action  of  Con- 
gress on,  97 

Children,  What  the  state  does  for  the, 
9 

Chinese  and  Americans,  Difference 
between,  31-32 

Chinese   civilization,    165 

Citizens,  The  most  practical  im- 
provement of  the  highest  and  best 
powers  of  the,  the  ideal,  4—5; 
what  individual,  must  do,  5;  the 
state  exists  that  the  ideal  may  be 
realized  by  its,  9;  relations  of, 
to  the  state,  9-10;  subjects  of  the 
state,  13-14;  action  of  state  tow- 
ards, dependent  on  will  of,  14- 
15;  and  upon  conditions  of  the 
state,  15—16;  must  do  what  the 
community  determines  best,  41, 
44;     have   legal   rights,    44 

Civil  service,  Weaknesses  in  the, 
122-23 

Civilization,  Different  stages  and 
types  of,  in  different  countries, 
4-5,  19;  ancient  and  high  in 
China,  Japan,  and  India,  32,  165; 
and  expansion,   164-65 

Class,  A  high  and  a  low,  31 

Class  antagonism,   90 

Class  representation,  81-84 ;  en- 
couraged by  proportional,  90;  in 
the  Cabinet,   122 


Clay,  Henry,  a  magnetic  leader,  37 

Clerical  positions  and  the  civil 
service,   122-24 

Cleveland,  Personality  of,  114;  en- 
forces   Monroe    Doctrine,    166 

Coffee,  Complicated  economics  of  a 
cup  of,  8-9 

Colorado,  Man  and  wife  opposing 
candidates  in,  56;  woman  suf- 
frage in,  57 

Combat,  The  ordeal  by,  92-93 

Commerce   makes   for   peace,    172 

Community,  Motives  for  the  actions 
of  the,  must  be  studied,  23;  must 
settle  what  is  for  its  own  benefit, 
41;  in  the  matter  of  suffrage,  57, 
58 

Compromise  often  a  wise  policy  in 
legislation,  97-98 ;  on  methods  but 
not  on  principle,   98-99 

Concert  of  Powers,   The,    173-74 

Conditions,  Actual,  must  be  depicted, 
2 

Consciousness  of  kind  and  its  effects, 
31 

Constituents,  The  representative  and 
his,    76-79 

Constitution,  Courts  will  not  permit 
legislature  to  change  a,  135-37; 
what  we  mean  by  a,  145;  the 
English,  and  that  of  U.S.  practi- 
cally the  same  in  content,  145; 
Prof.  J.  Macy's  definition  of  a, 
146;  Prof.  J.  W.  Burgess  on  the 
three  fundamental  parts  of  a,  146- 
49;  organization  for  changes  in, 
146-47;  constitution  of  liberty, 
147-48 ;  constitution  of  govern- 
ment, 148-49;  may  be  written, 
or  unwritten  as  in  Great  Britain, 
150—51 ;  measures  and  matters 
to  be  avoided  in  a,  158;  only 
essential,  fundamental  things 
should    be    put    in    a,   159 

Constitution,  The  English,  150-51 ; 
amended  by  statute  or  custom,  151 

Constitution,  the  federal,  Inter- 
pretation of,  131,  132;  length  of, 
144;  contains  only  absolutely 
fundamental  laws,  145,  149-50; 
to  be  studied,  criticised,  and  dis- 
cussed,   150;     preamble    to,    152; 


INDEX 


179 


amendments  to,  154;  political 
parties  a  part  of,   155 

Constitution-making  bodies,  and 
their  enacting  clauses,    151-54 

Constitutional  amendments,  45,  47, 
154 

Constitutionality  of  pending  bills, 
Courts  refuse  to  pass  on,  141 

Constitutions,  144—59 ;  comparative 
length  of,  144;  changed  in  char- 
acter, 145;  written  and  unwritten, 
145;  written,  adopted,  and  pro- 
mulgated by  some  body  different 
from  the  legislature,  151 ;  of  U.S., 
Oklahoma,  and  Japan  compared, 
152-53;  amendments  to,  154; 
informal  parts  of,  154—55;  pro- 
visions not  fundamental  found  in 
written,  156-57;  matters  requir- 
ing frequent  change  should  not 
be  put  in,  158;  students  of,  should 
study  the  whole  civic  structure, 
159 

Corea  wanted  by  both  Russia  and 
Japan,  162-63 

Corporations,  Our  great,  have  in- 
fluenced our  laws  and  politics,  19  ; 
the  heads  of,  desire  extension  of 
power,  30 

Corruption  of  voters  never  justified, 
63;     the    referendum    checks,    107 

Country  safe  whichever  party  wins 
election,  65 

Courts,  Special  administrative,  in 
Europe,    140-41 

Courts  declare  the  law,  129;  reflect 
change  in  public  opinion,  137; 
everyday  powers  of  the,  139;  the 
people    and    the,    143 

Courts  of  conciliation  in  Norway, 
139-40;  in  a  modified  form  in 
North   Dakota,   140 

Cranks  and  extremists  as  repre- 
sentatives, 88 

Criminals  only  sorry  they  have  been 
caught,  26 

Cromer,    Lord,    in    Egypt,    167-68 

Cuba,  The  question  of  suffrage  laws 
for,  40;  the  problem  of,  166- 
67 

Custom  has  the  force  of  law,  92-93 ; 
law  passed  to  change  a,  94;    the 


prescription     of,    should     be    rec- 
ognized  in   law,    156 
Czar  of  Russia,  The,  acts  within  very 
definite  bounds,  25 

Debs,  Mr.,  to  head  a  socialistic  ex- 
periment in  state  of  Washington, 
21 

Decentralization,  with  central  in- 
spection,   126-27 

Delegate  or  representative?  76-80, 
90 

Democracy,  A,  42 

Democratic  government,    12 

Democratic  majority,  The,  in  53d 
Congress,  81 

Despotism,  A,  may  be  really  a  free 
state,  44 

Despotisms,  The  great,  of  history, 
found  in  the  great  plains,   19 

Difference  between  peoples  implies 
neither  superiority  nor  inferiority, 
31-33 

Diplomatic  methods,  Influence  of 
United   States  on,    169-70 

Disraeli,    Personality   of,    114 

Dred  Scott  decision,  The,  and  the 
War  of  the  Rebellion,    131-32 

Dutch,  The,  examining  our  work  in 
the   Philippines,    168-69 

Economic  competition  of  nations, 
The,    makes    for   peace,    172 

Economic  society  complicated  yet 
perfect,  8-9 

Educational  qualification  must  be 
simple,  49 

Egypt,  Lord  Cromer  in,  167—68 

Election,  Fundamental  intention  in 
any,  12 

Elections,   Local  and  general,  49 

Emerson  on  independence  in  voters, 
51 

England  as  largely  a  republic  as  the 
United  States,  25;  the  present 
ruler  of,  29 ;  wage-earners  formerly 
excluded  from  the  ballot  in,  52; 
two  chief  parties  in,   71 

English,  The,  examining  our  work 
in  the   Philippines,    168-69 

Ethics  and  politics,  Relations  be- 
tween,   21 


180 


INDEX 


Examinations,    Competitive,    122-23 

Executive,  The  chief,  has  a  direct 
influence  on  public  opinion,  110- 
1 1 ;  stands  alone,  representing 
the  state,  111;  social  influence  of, 
111-12;  represents  the  majesty 
of  the  law,  113;  war  powers  of, 
113;  gets  revenues  through  the 
legislature,  113-14;  relations  of, 
to  legislature,  114;  responsibility 
of,  regarding  legislation,  114-15; 
to  enforce  the  law,  115—16;  sins 
of  legislature  against,  117;  power 
of,  in  interpreting  laws,  117-18;  per- 
sonal predilections  of,  119;  should 
know  what  his  subordinates  are 
doing,  125-26 

Executive,  or  other,  discretionary 
powers,   under  a  general  law,   103 

Executive  department,  Centraliza- 
tion in  the,  126 

Expansion,  a  natural  ambition,  161 ; 
geographical  necessity  for,  162- 
64 ;  question  of  right  and  wrong  in, 
164-65;  a  matter  of  strength,  164; 
and  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  165; 
so-called    diplomacy    in,     169-70 

Experience,    Education    by,    116 

Experiment,  The  method  of,  only 
remotely   available,  21 

Experts,  The  opinion  of,   102 

Facts  of  social  and  political  life, 
Principles  must  be  drawn  from  the, 
2;  our  observation  of  the,  must 
not  be  warped  by  beliefs  or  preju- 
dices, 22 

Fairchild,  C.  S.,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  118 

Falsehood  employed  in  diplomatic 
methods  and  in  war,  169-71 

Federal  legislation,  when  desirable, 
102 

Federation,  The  results  of,  173;  a 
world,   175 

Filipinos,  The,  and  self-government, 
167-68 

France,  Proportional  representa- 
tion in,  84;  with  growth  of,  war 
in,   ceased,    173 

Franklin  on  stopping  personal  vices, 
99 


Free  trade,  98 

French  and  Indian  War,  161-62,  163 

Gambetti  inspired  personal  devotion, 
37 

Gambling,  Question  of  licensing,  98 

Geographic  conditions,  Need  of  study 
of,   20 

Germany  dominated  by  military 
necessities,  15;  interest  of  present 
ruler  in  welfare  of,  29;  age  quali- 
fication of  voters  in,  47;  woman 
suffrage  in,  54;  class  representa- 
tion in,  82;  federation  in,  made 
for  peace,   173 

Gerrymander,  The,  and  its  results, 
80-81;  McKinley  defeated  for 
reelection  by  a,  85-86 

Giddings,  Prof.,  on  consciousness  of 
kind,  31 

Gladstone  a  magnetic  leader,  37 ; 
114 

Governing,  the  chief  work  of  the  state, 
9 

Government,  Nature  of  the  state  and 
of,  1-22;  the  great  committee  of 
the  state  to  formulate  and  carry 
out  its  will,  11;  represents  the 
state  as  a  whole,  but  members  of 
state  must  do  its  bidding,  12; 
personality  of  the  men  who  com- 
pose the,  13;  relation  of  the,  to 
each  individual  citizen,  13;  factors 
that  shape  the  nature  of  the,  18- 
19 ;  we  must  see  the  real  forms  of, 
25;  difference  between  a  free  and 
a  popular,  43-44;  protects  wage- 
earners,  52;  separation  of  powers 
of  departments  of,  127;  form  of 
organization  of,  and  ways  of  per- 
forming functions  of,    149,   159 

Governments,  The  chief  classifica- 
tion of,   based  on  suffrage,   42 

Great  Britain,  Property  qualifica- 
tion required  of  electors  in,  42-43 ; 
the  Local  Government  Board  in, 
126;  in  Egypt,  167;  and  her  de- 
pendencies, 169;  with  growth  of, 
war  in,  ceased,  173 

Greater  Britain,  A,   173 

Greece,  ancient,  Work  of  voters  in, 
45;    and  Rome  in  civilization,  165 


INDEX 


181 


Greece,  modern,  Parties  take  name 
of  political  leaders  in,  46 

Greek  Church,  The,  the  influence  by 
which  the  common  people  of 
Russia  are  controlled,   19 

Habit,  Influence  of,  34-36;  deter- 
mines party  membership,  68; 
creatures  of,   112 

Hague  Conferences,   The,    174,    175 

Hague   Tribunal,   The,    174 

Hamerton,  P.  G.,  on  the  qualities  of 
women,  110 

Hero  worship,   46 

Hindoos  and  Americans,  Difference 
between,  31-32 

Holy  Alliance,  The,  173 

Home  rule,  126 

House  of  Commons,  The  will  of  the, 
determines  the  act  of  government, 
43;  a  labor  member  of  the,  and 
the  aristocracy,  112;  has  the  ex- 
ecutive in  absolute  subordination, 
113-14 

Human  nature  and  the  factors  that 
influence  it,  18;  consciousness  of 
kind,  31;  recognition  of  differences, 
32;    inertia  or  human  laziness,  33 

Ideal,  Some,  of  the  state,  necessary, 
2—4;    of  the  American  citizen,  4—5 

Ignorance  responsible  for  venal  vote, 
51 ;  will  adding  ignorance  to, 
produce  wisdom,   78,   105—6 

Illinois,  The  referendum  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  state  of,   156 

Independence  in  voters,  51-52 

Independent  personality  of  women, 
54-55 

Independent  thinking  soul,  The,  a 
precious  thing,   51 

Indiana,  The  gerrymander  of  1892 
in,  81 

Indians,  Taking  land  from  the,  161,164 

Individual,  Each,  must  work  at  some 
practical  problem,  5;  many  mo- 
tives determine  the  acts  of  the, 
30-31 ;  has  no  right  to  demand 
anything  from  the  community,  41 ; 
activity  of  the,  in  a  popular  govern- 
ment, 44;  the  state  supreme  over 
the,  44 


Individual  characteristics,  Power  of, 
13 

Individual  initiative  should  be  safe- 
guarded, 104 

Individualists,  The,   14 

Inertia,  Mental,  or  human  laziness, 
33-34;  tends  to  conservatism,  35; 
must  be  kept  in  mind,  41 

Ingraham,  Capt.,  and  Martin  Koszta, 
10-11 

Initiative,  The,  in  Switzerland,  104—5 

Ins,  The,   and  the  outs,  70—71 

Interests,  The,  of  all  should  be  sought, 
39 

International  Congress,  A  general,  to 
meet   regularly,   needed,    175 

International  relations,  160-75;  in- 
fluence of  the  U.S.  upon,  160;  lying, 
practised  in,  169-71 ;  a  general 
congress  on  rules  in,  needed,  175 

Interpretation  of  law  by  the  courts, 
129;  significance  of  power  of, 
131-32 

Interstate  Commerce  Law,  The,  and 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  133 

Intervention  for  the  sake  of  hu- 
manity, 174 

Introspection,  A  habit  of,  should  be 
developed,  20 

Isolation,  Advantages  of  our,   160 

Issues,  Local,  have  nothing  to  do 
with   national   politics,    73 

Issues,  Special,  originate  third  parties, 
72 

Italy,  With  growth  of,  war  in,  ceased, 
173 

Jackson,  Andrew,  Influence  of  per- 
sonality of,  on  the  state,  13,  114;  a 
magnetic  leader,  37 

Japan,  Preamble  to  Constitution  of, 
152-53;    no  fear  of  war  with,  172 

Japanese  and  Americans,  Difference 
between,  31-32 

Jefferson,  Voters  swayed  by  name  of, 
70;  and  the  Louisiana  purchase, 
163 

Johnson,  Andrew,  and  Congress,  114 

Jordan,  President,  and  the  six  idlers 
on  the   fence,   41-42 

Judge-made  law,  129;  behind  the 
times,  135 


182 


INDEX 


Judges,  Our,  lawyers,  unfamiliar 
with  business  and  social  conditions, 
134-35;  conserve  the  rights  of  the 
people,    143. 

Judgment,  The,  of  others,  taken  with- 
out testing,  42 

Judiciary,  The,  129-43;  impartiality 
of,  must  be  secured,  141 ;  term  of 
office  of,  and   character  of,  142-43 

Kind,  Consciousness  of,  and  its  effects, 

31 
Kings,   Divine  right  of,   111 
Kipling's  "East  and  West,"  32-33 
Koszta,     Martin,     protected    as    an 

American   citizen,    10-11 
Krupp  Iron  Works  elect  one-third  of 

the  representatives  in  Essen,  82 

Labor,  Demand  for,  unanswered,  42; 
representatives  of,  in  Congress  and 
state  legislatures,  83 

Law,  Disrespect  for,  an  evil  thing, 
95;  no  enforcement  of,  without 
public  sentiment,  102,  115;  the 
best  form  of,  106;  courts  declare 
the,   129 

Laws  become  obsolete,  115-16;  in- 
terpretation of,  by  executives,  117- 
18;  ambiguous,  130,  132;  condi- 
tions change  under  old,  133;  the 
fundamental,  really  constitutional, 
change  but   little,    159 

Laws  relating  to  social  institutions 
simply  the  formulation  of  customs, 
93,  94 

Lawyers,  Large  representation  of,  in 
most  legislatures,  83 

Legislation,  92-109;  radical  changes 
in,  avoided,  95,  96;  chief  aim  of, 
restrictive,  99;  national,  state  or 
local,  102;  direct,  104-5,  106; 
fundamental  principles  of,  109; 
the    executive    and    popular,    115 

Legislative  detail,    102-3 

Legislative  matters,  Voters  not  com- 
petent to  decide  on  all,  49;  decen- 
tralization in,  126 

Legislative  method  injurious  and 
contemptible,   117 

Legislators  should  take  to  heart  the 
interests  of  the  people,  83;    follow 


public  opinion,  95,  96,  103,  106; 
compromise  by,  often  a  wise  policy, 
97 

Legislature,  The,  and  the  executive, 
113-14 

Liberties  of  the  individual  should  be 
defined  in  the  constitution,  147- 
48;  implicit  in  the  customs  of  the 
people,  148;  the  nature  of,  funda- 
mental, 159 

Liberty,  A  mountainous  country  the 
cradle  of,   18 

Lincoln  above  all  parties,  70;  auto- 
cratic power  of,  in  the  Civil  War, 
113 

Local  option  laws,   102 

Louisiana   purchase,    The,    163 

Lowell,  James  Russell,  on  the  stand- 
ard of  real  value  of  a  country, 
3-4 

Luxury  or  comfort,  Complicated 
economics  of  securing  any  article 
of,  8-9 

Lying  practised  in  war  and  in  di- 
plomacy,   169-71 

McKinley,     William,     defeated      for 

reelection  by  a  gerrymander,  85- 

86 
McKinley  Tariff  Law,  The,  81 
Macy,  Prof.  Jesse,  on  a  constitution, 

146 
Magna  Charta,  150,  151 
Majority,   There  may  be  a  tyranny 

of  the,  44 
Majority  party,  There  would  be  no, 

under  proportional  representation, 

89 
Man,  The  average,  drifts  into  politics, 

business,    and   religion,  34 
Marshall,    Chief    Justice,    established 

doctrine  of  implied  powers,  131 
Measure,    The,    of    a    nation's    true 

success,  4 
Mexico,    Monroe    Doctrine    enforced 

in,  166 
Minority,  The,  submits  to  will  of  the 

majority,  12 
Misunderstandings,      Lawsuits      and 

quarrels   spring   from,    132,    139 
Monroe,  Personality  of,  13 ;    and  Con- 
gress, 114 


INDEX 


183 


Monroe  Doctrine,  Statement  of  the, 
165-66 

Motives,  The  political,  23-39;  a 
complete  study  of,  impracticable, 
24 ;  of  real  rulers,  25 ;  position  and 
power,  28-30 

Mugwumps,  68-69 

Mustaches,  Fashion  in,  set  by  Na- 
poleon III  and  the  German  Em- 
peror, 111-12 

National  banks,  Deposit  of  public 
funds  in,  118 

Natural  right,  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  a,  40-41,  44 

Negro  suffrage,  57,  58-60;  quali- 
fications for,  58-59;  a  practical 
matter,  59-60 

New  York  City  at  times  governed 
by  an  oligarchy,  25;  action  of 
members  of  Assembly  voting  for 
Greater,  77;  a  question  whether 
class  representation  would  not  be 
better  in,  82-83;  outvoted  in 
Legislature  by  country  members, 
83;    chief  executive  of  (1908),  110 

New  York  state  at  times  under  sway 
of  a  boss,  25;  large  group  of  in- 
dependent voters  in,  69-70;  might 
have  several  small  parties,  87-88; 
chief  executive  of  (1908),  110; 
forest  provision  in  Constitution  of, 
156-57 

Nicholas  II  and  Peter  the  Great, 
13 

Nominations,    Direct,   46 

North  Dakota,  Court  of  conciliation 
in,  140 

North  Sea  trouble,  The,  174 

Norway,  Country  districts  in,  out- 
rank the  city  in  representation, 
82;  courts  of  conciliation  in,  139- 
40 

Office,  When  seeking,  is  justified,  29; 

change  in,  74 
Office-holders    should    be    able    and 

tried,  74 
Offices,  Clerical,  should  not  be  filled 

by  party  men,  74 
Offices,  Some,  in  their  nature  political, 

73-74 


Officials,  Government,  and  the  ballot, 

52-53 
Oklahoma,  Length  of  constitution  of, 

144;    preamble  to,  152;    text-book 

provision  in,    157 
Ordeals,   The  custom  of,   92 
Orient,    Institutions  of  Anglo-Saxon 

race  not  adapted  to  people  of  the, 

19 
Over-legislation,    89-90;     danger  of, 

103-4 

Parties,  Third,  and  their  desirability, 
71-72;  originate  in  special  issues, 
72;    true  function  of,   73 

Parties,  Two  chief,  in  U.S.  and  Eng- 
land, 71 ;  should  not  small,  have 
proportional  representation  ?  84— 
85,  86-87 

Party,  Devotion  to,  38 

Party,  One  small,  might  hold  balance 
of  power,  89;  may  make  propa- 
ganda at   public   expense,    108 

Party  leaders  should  use  only  honest 
and  honorable  methods,  63;  only 
unselfish  patriots  should  be,  66; 
as  such,  have  no  claim  to  office, 
74 

Party  machines,  62;  organization 
and   work  of,   64—65 

Party  membership,  how  determined, 
66;  by  environment,  habits,  and 
business,  67 

Party   organization,   Abuse  of,   81 

Party  politics  and  party  thinking, 
35 

Party's  policy,  Helping  shape,  within 
better  than  hostile  criticism  from 
outside,    69;     changed,    70 

Patriotism  a  justification  for  seeking 
office,  29-30;  as  a  political  in- 
fluence, 38 ;   voters  should  have,  50 

Paupers  may  properly  be  disfran- 
chised, 51 

Peace,  Forces  tending  toward  per- 
petual, 171-75;  cost  of  armies, 
171-72;  commerce,  172;  Roman 
Catholic  church,  172-73;  growth 
of  great  states,  173 ;  federation  and 
alliances,  173-74;  arbitration,  174; 
the  Hague  Conferences,    174-75 

Peasant,  The,  calls  upon  the  state,  6 


184 


INDEX 


People,  Mass  of  the,  unenlightened 
in  the  principles  of  politics,  2; 
views  of  the,  regarding  the  state, 
very  indefinite,  7;  the  will  of  the, 
not  to  be  feared,  15;  should  the 
ignorant,  be  allowed  to  suffer?  17; 
many  hereditary  rulers  devoted  to 
the  good  of  their,  28-29 ;  the  com- 
mon, and  the  race  question,  31- 
32;  influenced  by  patriotism,  38; 
unwillingness  of,  to  think  and 
work,  41 ;  hero  worship  among 
the,  46 ;  cling  to  a  party  name,  70  ; 
legislating  for  themselves,  105; 
that  all  the,  are  wiser  than  part, 
an  unsound  principle,  105-6 ;  soon 
tire  of  discussion  of  a  complicated 
question,  107;  cannot  vote  in- 
telligently on  complicated  ques- 
tions, 107-8;  attitude  of,  toward 
chief  executive,  113;  learn  from 
their  own  mistakes,  116;  a  con- 
stitution must  protect  the  liberties 
of  the,  147-48 

"People  of  the  United  States,"  Am- 
biguity of  the  phrase,  153-54 

Peoples,    Difference    between,    31-33 

Pericles  on  the  ideal  of  the  Athenians, 
3 

Personal  interests  in  politics,   23 

Personal  prestige  of  chief  ruler,   113 

Personality,  Power  of,  13,  56,  114; 
not  determined  by  civil  sendee 
examinations,  123 

Peter  the  Great,    13 

Philippines,  Our  experiment  in  the, 
167;  its  international  bearing,  167; 
Dutch  and  English  examining,  168 

Policy  of  the  state,  Factors  that  de- 
termine the,    18-20 

Political  action,  Complete  analysis 
of  motives  determining,  impracti- 
cable, 24;  we  view,  from  our  own 
interests,  39;  predicted  geograph- 
ically,   51 

Political  ideas,  how  originated,  88-89 

Political  influence,  Every  person  has 
some,  23;  of  the  chief  executive, 
110-11 

Political  parties,  61-75;  Wood- 
row  Wilson  on,  61 ;  how  made  up, 
61-62;      a    necessity,     62;      party 


machines  and  securing  the  offices, 
62-63,  65;  honest  and  honorable 
management  of,  63;  may  remain 
too  long  in  power,  65-66;  should 
not  exist  except  for  good  of  the 
state,  66;  change  their  policy,  70; 
the  ins  and  the  outs,  70-71 ;  de- 
votion to,  should  be  only  for  sake 
of  country,  75;  informally  a  part 
of  our  Constitution,    155 

Political  reasoning,  Nature  of  the 
premises  needed  in,  17-19; 
methods  of  study,  20-21 

Political  tricks  to  secure  party  suc- 
cess, 26 

Politicians,  Most,  act  conscientiously, 
26 

Politics,  the  study  that  deals  with 
the  state  and  with  government,  6; 
differences  in,  and  civilization,  32; 
principles  of,  in  international  mat- 
ters, 160 

Post-office,  The,  everywhere  a  gov- 
ernment monopoly,  16 

Post-Office  Department,  The,  like  a 
great  express  company,   120 

Powers,  implied,  Doctrine  of  the,  131 

Powers  of  branches  of  government, 
Separation  of,   127 

Prejudice  a  motive  force  in  the  state, 
33 

President,  The,  and  popular  legisla- 
tion, 115;  the  Cabinet  of  the,  120- 
22;  must  rely  on  subordinates 
in  making  appointments,  124-26; 
change  of  custom  in  election  of, 
has  amended  the  Constitution,  155 

Prime  Minister  practically  nominated 
and  elected  by  House  of  Commons, 
113;  personality  of  the,  114 

Prince   Albert   coats,  111 

Principles,  The,  controlling  political 
motives  apply  also  in  business, 
30 

Private  enterprise  and  public  man- 
agement,  127-28 

Privileges,  Special,   104 

Prohibition,  Laws  for,  effective  or 
otherwise  according  to  local  public 
opinion,  95-96;  that  cannot  be 
enforced,    unwise,    102 

Prussia,  Class  representation  in,  82 


INDEX 


185 


Public  imagination,  Chief  executive 
tries  to  capture  the,    110-11,    115 

Public  opinion,  Influence  of  chief 
executive  on,  110 

Public  sentiment  and  woman  suf- 
frage, 57-58;  and  the  law,  95-96, 
102,  106 

Qualifications  of  voters,  47-53 ;  edu- 
cational, 48-50 

Questions  at  issue  not  clearly  under- 
stood, 37 

Race  conflicts,  31-33 

Races,  Representation  of  different, 
in  advisory  positions,   121 

Railroads  in  Germany  a  military 
necessity,  15 

Referendum,  The,  in  Switzerland, 
104-5;  checks  corruption,  107; 
abuse  of,  108;  a  general,  not  wise 
for  most  countries,  108;  in  Con- 
stitution of  state  of  Illinois,   156 

Reform  movements  of  history  started 
by  extremists,  88 

Reformer,  President  Roosevelt  on  the 
unpractical  radical,  1 

Reformers,  Mistaken  assumption  of, 
2 

Registration  laws,  48 

Reichstag,  the  German,  No  educa- 
tional or  property  qualification  re- 
quired of  electors  of  members  of, 
42;  has  little  influence  in  govern- 
mental affairs,  43 

Religion,  We  follow  our  fathers  in, 
34 

Representation,  76-91 ;  are  repre- 
sentatives merely  delegates?  76- 
77;  Edmund  Burke  on,  77-78; 
in  other  than  political  matters, 
79-80 ;  the  delegate  idea  of,  favors 
the  demagogue,  80;  result  of,  in 
53d  Congress,  81;  abuse  of,  81; 
of  certain  classes,  81-84;  propor- 
tional, 84-87;  advantages,  85-86; 
objections,  87-89;  class,  encour- 
aged by  proportional,  90;  no 
one  system  of,  adapted  to  all 
countries,  90-91 ;  best  method  for 
complicated  questions,  108;  geo- 
graphic, in  the  Cabinet,   121 


Representatives  and  their  constit- 
uents, 76-80 ;  stand  for  the  people 
of  the  entire  country,  78;  ought 
not  to  be  errand  boys,  79-80;  a 
majority  of,  in  the  51st  Congress 
elected  by  a  minority  of  the  voters, 
81 ;  ought  they  to  be  chosen  from 
special  classes  ?  84 

Republican  congressmen  in  1894,  81 

Republican  party,  Policy  of,  changed 
several  times,  70;  sprang  from  a 
third   party,    72 

Road,  Custom  of  the,  93-94 

Roman  Catholic  church  exerts  a 
powerful  influence  towards  peace, 
172-73 

Roosevelt,  President,  on  unpractical 
radical  reformers,  1 ;  personality  of, 
114 

Rulers,  Motives  of  the  real,  24 ;  con- 
trolled by  popular  sentiment,  25; 
moral  code  of,  27;  position  and 
power  most  important  motives  of, 
28-30 

Rural  vote,  The,  cannot  be  calculated 
accurately,   18 

Russia,  The  common  people  of, 
controlled  through  the  Greek 
Church,  19;  power  of  the  church 
in,  constitutional,  155;  with  growth 
of,  war  in,   ceased,   173 

Russia,  Germany,  and  Great  Britain, 
monarchies,  but  their  govern- 
ments  have    little    likeness,    25 

Russo-Japanese  war,  The,  13;  in- 
evitable, 162-63;  intervention  in 
the,    174 

Schools   and   colleges,    Our,    have   a 

great    effect    in    determining    our 

politics,  19 
Self-interest  a  strong  political  motive, 

36-37 
Shaw,    Leslie   M.,    Secretary   of   the 

Treasury,  118 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act,  The,   116, 

129-30 
Slavery,    The   problem   of,    and   the 

Civil  War,   162 
Slaves  ought  not  to  vote,  52 
Social  influence  of  the  chief  executive, 

111-12;    of  the  aristocracy,    113 


186 


INDEX 


Social  institutions  have  their  in- 
fluence upon  political  conditions, 
19 

Socialistic  experiment,  A,  proposed 
in  state  of  Washington,  21 

Socialists,    Belief   of   the,    14 

Societies,  Common  characteristics 
of  different  classes  of,  7;  we  join, 
but  are  born  into  the  state,   10 

Society,  The  fundamental  influence 
that  tends  to   create,   31 

South   Africa,    Federation   in,    173 

South  Carolina,  Length  of  consti- 
tution of,   144 

Southern  states,  Sentiment  in,  after 
close  of  the  Civil  War,  59 

Spain,  International  troubles  aris- 
ing from  war  with,   166 

State,  Nature  of  the,  and  of  govern- 
ment, 1-22;  a  tentative  ideal  of 
the,  must  be  set  up,  2-3;  exists 
for  the  benefit  of  all  classes,  4; 
characteristics  of  the,  6-12;  a 
social  organization,  7;  is  supreme, 
gives  and  enforces  laws,  9-10; 
governing  the  chief  work  of  the,  9 ; 
grants  aid  and  protection,  10-11; 
acts  through  its  agents,  the  govern- 
ment, 11-12;  activities  of  the, 
how  determined,  14-17;  likely  to 
make  mistakes,  17;  factors  that 
shape  the  nature  of  the,  18-20; 
the  best,  in  the  view  of  the  poor 
and  of  the  idle  rich,  38 ;  a  free,  and 
one  with  a  popular  government  to 
be  distinguished  between,  43-44; 
social  and  practical  conceptions 
of  the  people  of  the,  147 

States,  The  growth  of  great,  a  ten- 
dency for  peace,  173;  concerted 
action  among  leading,  may  de- 
termine   peace,    174 

Statesman,  Duty  of  the,  22;  mis- 
leads one  of  his  neighbors  for  the 
good  of  the  state,  27 

Straits   Settlements,    Different    races 
represented  in  Governor's  Council 
of  the,  121 
Study,  Comparative,  of  other  states 
and   governments   necessary,    20 

Study,  Methods  of,  in  handling  the 
premises    of    politics,    20-21 


Subordinates  and  superiors,  118-20; 
should  be  carefully  selected,  124; 
responsibilities  of,  124—26 

Success,  Measure  of  a  nation's  true,  4 

Suffrage,  The,  40-60;  the  chief 
classification  of  governments  based 
on,  42;  tendency  to  extend  the 
right  of,  and  to  give  voters  more 
influence,  43;  should  not  be  the 
same  in  all  countries,  55-56;  not 
a  right,  57 ;  question  of,  must  be 
settled  for  the  good  of  each  com- 
munity, 57-58;  for  the  negro 
or  other  race,  58-60;  general 
principles  of,  to  be  applied  con- 
servatively,  60 

Supreme  Court,  U.  S.,  and  the  Sher- 
man Anti-Trust  Act,  129-30;  and 
aerial  navigation,  133;  not  famil- 
iar with  business  conditions,  135; 
charges  of  "packing"  the,  137; 
decision  of,  on  the  income  tax,  138 

Switzerland  easily  defended,  18; 
work  of  voters  in,  45,  47;  propor- 
tional representation  in,  84,  85, 
87;  initiative  and  referendum  in, 
105-6,  107,  108;  legislature  the 
final  interpreter  of  law  in,   138 

Taboo,  Custom  of,  in  islands  of 
Oceanica,  92 

Tariff,  The,  affects  party  member- 
ship, 67;    compromise  on,  98 

Tasmania,  Proportional  representa- 
tion in,  87 

Taxes,  Light  or  heavy,  at  the  will  of 
the  people,  14—15 

Temperament  of  individuals  note- 
worthy, 66 

Territory,  Question  of  right  and 
wrong  in  the  acquirement  of,  164- 
65 

Texas,  The  acquisition  of,  a  necessity, 
163 

Theft,  Law  against,  in  a  community 
of  thieves,   103 

Thinking  understandingly  too  much 
trouble  for  most  of  us,  42 

Trade,  Restraint  of,  under  Sherman 
Anti-Trust  Act,    129-30 

Treasury,  Secretary  of,  and  the  de- 
posit of  public  funds,   118 


INDEX 


187 


Treasury,  The  U.S.,  the  greatest  book- 
keeping and  disbursing  establish- 
ment in  the  world,   120 

Turkey,  The  Sultan  of,  has  limits  set 
to  his  despotism,  25 

"Unconstitutional,"      Difference     in 

meaning  of,  in  Great  Britain  and 

United   States,    145 
United    States,    Chief    executive    of 

(1908),  110;  federation  in  the,  173, 

175 
University  faculty,  Parties  in  a,  66- 

67 
University    president,    The,    desires 

to  extend  his  power,  30 
Utah,  Woman  suffrage  in,  57 

Van  Buren  and  Congress,  114 
Vendetta,  The  custom  of  the,  92 
Venezuela  controversy,  Cleveland  en- 
forces   Monroe    Doctrine    in    the, 
166 
Vices,    personal,    Franklin  on    stop- 
ping,   99;     legislation   on,    99-100 
Vote,    A    Democratic,  equal    to    5.4 

Republican  votes,  81 
Vote  buying,  How  to  stop,  37 
Voters,  Nine-tenths  of,  stay  put  in 
politics,  33-34;  should  do  their 
own  thinking,  35;  influenced  by 
devotion  to  party  leader,  37 ; 
influence  exerted  by,  43;  char- 
acter of  work  done  by,  44—45; 
voting  upon  laws  the  main  duty  of, 
in  some  countries,  45;  the  most 
important  work  of,  45,  47,  48; 
choose  between  rival  candidates, 
46;  propose  laws  in  Switzerland, 
47;  age  qualification  of,  47; 
residence,   48 ;    educational  quali-  I 


fication,  48-50;  knowledge  of 
good  government,  50;  patriotism 
and  good  judgment,  50-51 ;  in- 
dependence in,  51-52;  corruption 
of,  worse  than  party  defeat,  63; 
influencing  doubtful,  64-65;  con- 
sider their  individual  interests,  68; 
should  influential  and  conscien- 
tious, withdraw  from  their  party, 
69,  70;  should  not  be  bound  by 
party  name,  70;  the  body  of, 
the  political  society  of  the  state, 
147 
Voting,  The  right  of,  a  sacred  trust, 
44;  basis  for  restrictions  on,  44; 
not  a  right,   57 

Wage-earners   and   the   ballot,   52 

Washington,  George,  Efforts  of,  to 
promote    peace,    160 

Wealth,  Concentration  of,  in  the 
hands  of  a  few,  has  influenced  our 
law    and    politics,    19 

Wesley,  John,  and  the  drunkard,  20 

Western  continent  not  open  to 
European   powers,    165-66 

Woman  suffrage,  53-58;  argument 
of  anti-suffragists,  54 ;  independent 
personality  of  women,  55;  some- 
times a  success,  56  ;  in  the  eastern 
and  western  states,  57 ;  the  question 
must  be  settled  for  the  good  of 
each  community,  57-58;  public 
sentiment   and,  57-58 

Women,  Our,  fully  the  equal  of  the 
men,  53-54;  have  the  right  to  vote 
in  some  countries  and  states,  54; 
large  proportion  of,  have  indepen- 
dent personality,  55;  and  men 
think  much  alike  on  public  ques- 
tions,   56-57 

C.  A.  N. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Columbia  University  in  the  City  of  New  York 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LECTURES 


CARPENTIER   LECTURES 

THE  NATURE  AND  SOURCES  OF  THE  LAW.  By  John  Chip- 
man  Gray,  LL.D.,  Royall  Professor  of  Law  in  Harvard  Univer- 
sity.    12mo,  cloth,  pp.  xii  +  332.     Price,  §1.50  net. 

WORLD  ORGANIZATION  AS  AFFECTED  BY  THE  NATURE  OF 
THE  MODERN  STATE.  By  Hon.  David  Jayne  Hill,  some- 
time American  Ambassador  to  Germany.  12mo,  cloth,  pp.  ix  + 
214.     Price,  §1.50  net. 

THE  GENIUS  OF  THE  COMMON  LAW.  By  the  Rt.  Hon.  Sie 
Frederick  Pollock,  Bart.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Bencher  of  Lincoln's 
Inn.     12mo,  cloth,  pp.  vii  +  141.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

THE  MECHANICS  OF  LAW  MAKING.  By  Courtenay  Ilbert, 
G.C.B.,  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Commons.  12mo,  cloth,  pp.  viii-l- 
209.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

HEWITT  LECTURES 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  MONOPOLY.     By  John  Bates  Clark,  LL.D., 

Professor  of  Political  Economy,  Columbia  University.  12mo, 
cloth,  pp.  vi  +  128.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

POWER.  By  Charles  Edward  Lucke,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Me- 
chanical Engineering,  Columbia  University.  12mo,  cloth,  pp. 
vii  +  316.    Illustrated.     Price,  $2.00  net. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  EVOLUTION.  Its  Basis  and  its  Scope.  By 
Henry  Edward  Crampton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Zoology,  Colum- 
bia University.     12mo,  cloth,  pp.  ix  +  311.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

MEDIEVAL  STORY  AND  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  SOCIAL 
IDEALS  OF  ENGLISH-SPEAKING  PEOPLE.  By  William 
Witherle  Lawrence,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  English,  Co- 
lumbia University.     12mo,  cloth,  pp.  xiv  +  236.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

LAW  AND  ITS  ADMINISTRATION.  By  Harlan  F.  Stone, 
LL.D.,  Dean  of  the  School  of  Law,  Columbia  University.  12mo, 
cloth,  pp.  vii  +  232.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

JESUP  LECTURES 

LIGHT.  By  Richard  C.  Maclaurin,  LL.D.,  Sc.D.,  President  of  the 
Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology.  12mo,  cloth,  pp.  ix  +  251. 
Portrait  and  ficcures.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

SCIENTIFIC  FEATURES  OF  MODERN  MEDICINE.  By  Frederic 
S.  Lee,  Ph.D.,  Dalton  Professor  of  Physiology,  Columbia  Univer- 
sity.    12mo,  cloth,  pp.  vii  +  183.     Price,  $L50  net. 

HEREDITY  AND  SEX.  By  Thomas  Hunt  Morgan,  Ph.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Experimental  Zoology  in  Columbia  University.  12mo, 
cloth,  pp.  vii  +  284.     Illustrated.     Price,  $1.75  net. 


LEMCKE    &    BUECHNER,    Agents 

30-32   WEST   27th   ST.,   NEW   YORK 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Columbia  University  in  the  City  of  New  York 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LECTURES 


CARPENTIER  LECTURES 

THE  NATURE  AND  SOURCES  OF  THE  LAW.  By  John  Chip- 
man  Gray,  LL.D.,  Royall  Professor  of  Law  in  Harvard  Univer- 
sity.    12mo,  cloth,  pp.  xii  +  332.     Price,  .$1.50  net. 

WORLD  ORGANIZATION  AS  AFFECTED  BY  THE  NATURE  OF 
THE  MODERN  STATE.  By  Hon.  David  Jayne  Hill,  some- 
time American  Ambassador  to  Germany.  12mo,  cloth,  pp.  ix  + 
214.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

THE  GENIUS  OF  THE  COMMON  LAW.  By  the  Rt.  Hon.  Sir 
Frederick  Pollock,  Bart.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Bencher  of  Lincoln's 
Inn.     12mo,  cloth,  pp.  vii  +  141.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

THE  MECHANICS  OF  LAW  MAKING.  By  Courtenay  Ilbert, 
G.C.B.,  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Commons.  12mo,  cloth,  pp.  viii+ 
209.     Price,  $1.60  net. 

HEWITT  LECTURES 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  MONOPOLY.  By  John  Bates  Clark,  LL.D., 
Professor  of  Political  Economy,  Columbia  University.  12mo, 
cloth,  pp.  vi  +  128.     Price,  $1.60  net. 

POWER.  By  Charles  Edward  Lucke,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Me- 
chanical Engineering,  Columbia  University.  12mo,  cloth,  pp. 
vii  +  316.    Illustrated.    Price,  $2.00  net. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  EVOLUTION.  Its  Basis  and  its  Scope.  By 
Henry  Edward  Crampton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Zoology,  Colum- 
bia University.     12mo,  cloth,  pp.  is  +  311.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

MEDIEVAL  STORY  AND  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  SOCIAL 
IDEALS  OF  ENGLISH-SPEAKING  PEOPLE.  By  William 
Witherle  Lawrence,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  English,  Co- 
lumbia University.     12mo,  cloth,  pp.  xiv  +  236.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

LAW  AND  ITS  ADMINISTRATION.  By  Harlan  F.  Stone, 
LL.D.,  Dean  of  the  School  of  Law,  Columbia  University.  12mo, 
cloth,  pp.  vii  +  232.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

JESUP  LECTURES 

LIGHT.  By  Richard  C.  Maclatjrin,  LL.D.,  Sc.D.,  President  of  the 
Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology.  12mo,  cloth,  pp.  ix  +  251. 
Portrait  and  figures.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

SCIENTIFIC  FEATURES  OF  MODERN  MEDICINE.  By  Frederic 
S.  Lee,  Ph.D.,  Dalton  Professor  of  Physiology,  Columbia  Univer- 
sity.    12mo,  cloth,  pp.  vii  +  183.     Price,  $1.50  net. 

HEREDITY  AND  SEX.  By  Thomas  Hunt  Morgan,  Ph.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Experimental  Zoology  in  Columbia  University.  12mo, 
cloth,  pp.  vii  +  284.     Illustrated.     Price,  $1.75  net. 


LEMCKE    &    BUECHNER,   Agents 

30-32   WEST   27th   ST.,   NEW   YORK 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


APR  8      1B36 


3CTlJJg3fe 

REC'DLD-URl 
JUN  1  1  199 


Form  L-9-15m.-7,'32 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  807  969    1 


L  006  357  915  5 


